A micro-essay On Moral Motivation
– James Pearce
– There is a significant difference between “morality,” strictly so-called, and “moral motivation,” or that which leads us to act upon our knowledge, once we have figured out the right thing to do. In other words, it is possible for me to know quite clearly that something is wrong, and yet do it anyway; Aristotle called this “moral incontinence.”
The existence of moral incontinence (which Plato would have denied) illustrates that there is more to moral action than merely knowing what is good or right; there is also that which motivates us to act in accordance with whatever we know (or believe) to be good or right. Conflation of morality with moral motivation is the source of much confusion.
The real significance of religion for morality is not the source or even the nature of the moral law; this is clear since different religions sanction different moral laws. However, what all major religions have in common is divine punishment and reward for defiance of, or obedience to, the moral law; in other words, moral motivation.
Does the Gambler’s Fallacy Hold at the Quantum Level?
What is an individual’s motivation for acting morally? If that individual is religious, the answer is obvious: divine punishment and reward. But if an individual is not religious, what then is the motivation for moral action? Historically, there are three general responses to this query: consequences, duty, and social cooperation.
Here I will not delve into the various meta-ethical theories involved, because our present concern is not ethics per se, but the motivation for following through on the results or conclusions of moral reasoning, i.e., the question of motivation. The alert reader may have noticed that such questions are empirical, hence scientific, hence psychological.
One of the foremost pioneers in the field of moral psychology was Lawrence Kohlberg. Kohlberg’s research revealed three levels, and six sub-stages, of “moral development” which, for present purposes, is less a matter of figuring out what’s right and wrong than a matter of motivation for following through on the outcomes of such reasoning.
Spelled out, the results of Kohlberg’s research look like this:
Level 1 – Pre-conceptual thought (infants, toddlers, children; moral reasoning is governed by external standards determined by other people, usually parents or guardians)
Stage 1: avoidance of punishment, motivated by fear; that is right which evades retaliation
Stage 2: acquisition of benefit or reward, motivated by desire; that is right which fulfills self-interest
Brief Discuss: What Is and Isn’t an Agnostic ?
Level 2 – Conceptual thought (early adulthood, full maturity; moral reasoning is governed by internalized versions of previously external standards)
Stage 3: Emotional gratification, motivated by approval-seeking; that is right which creates, sustains, or enhances social relationships
Stage 4: Maintenance of social order, motivated by conscience; that is right which obeys the law and adheres to duty
Level 3 – Post-conceptual thought (an atypical level of extremely high moral development, attainable only by education, training, and self-discipline; moral reasoning is internal and independent of external standards)
Stage 5: Peaceful social coexistence with maximum possible liberty for each individual, motivated by respect for individuals; that is right which allows the greatest amount of personal freedom compatible with equal freedom for everyone (protection of individual and minority rights)
Stage 6: Reasoning independent of any gain or loss for the reasoning agent, motivated by logical consistency; that is right which is consistent with universal ethical principles independently of all legal or social sanctions.
Stages 5 and 6 are what might be referred to as “heroic” levels of moral development; they are extremely unusual and are not found routinely in normal society. Examples of Stage 5 might include political rebels, such as the American founders. Examples of Stage 6 might include Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Thoreau, Gandhi, Martin Luther King.
Leaving aside considerations of Level 3, which most of us will never attain, note that Levels 1 and 2, along with their sub-stages, correlate closely with natural periods in the human growth-cycle: infant, toddler, child, early adulthood and full maturity. The key point here is to observe how kinds or types of motivation correlate with age-groups.
According to Kohlberg, pre-conceptual thought is motivated either by avoidance of punishment or acquisition of personal benefit. Conceptual thought, on the other hand, is motivated by emotional gratification and by maintenance of a peaceful, co-operative social order. Note that at the level of conceptual thought, punishment and reward are largely internalized (happiness vs. guilt, etc.), and external punishments and rewards are ancillary, required only for individuals who do not develop beyond Level 1.
Motivation arising from externally inflicted punishment (or reward) is, according to Kohlberg, an indication of moral immaturity or lack of development. Those who, for whatever reason, fail to develop functionally must be “kept in line” by external punishments and rewards administered by society – no longer by parents.
I conclude that these observations have considerable impact on the long-standing debate concerning the role of religion (or God) in morality. Since religiously based morality offers rather clear-cut examples of externally applied punishments and rewards, such forms of moral motivation are clearly aimed at the infant-toddler-child levels of moral development. However, external motivation of this sort has no application to the fully developed moral adult.
Hence, it is misguided to argue whether religion has a legitimate role to play in moral theory. Rather, religion has an important role to play in the moral motivation of those who have not, or who may never, reach full moral maturity; otherwise, it has no role at all.
Proving the Universe Origin via Quantum Cosmology
Love car stories ? check here