User:Windy and Wensday/sandbox

Moral cognition Understanding how the brain influences moral judgement and decision-making is known as moral cognition. As a social science, it entails comprehending the justifications and prejudices that influence moral judgement. Along with technological advancement, the scientific study of the brain also plays a role in moral cognition. Researchers that investigate moral cognition make an effort to offer social and biological justifications for how our brains interpret data and render moral or immoral decisions. While some researchers look at genetic and biological factors, others utilize neuroimaging to identify the parts of the brain that influence people's decisions. It seems like moral reasoning is a difficult process. The brain does not have a single location where moral activity takes place. But there is evidence that moral judgement is consistently influenced by a network of different brain regions. Therefore, the goal of the research of moral cognition is not to direct people's decisions. Instead, it makes an effort to explain how and why people make the moral decisions that they do. What is deemed to be morally acceptable action in humans depends on sociocultural elements like political goals, religious views, educational attainment, and region-specific laws and regulations (Arutyunova et al., 2016). The ideals and morally consistent actions of a person are also influenced by their age and sex. In comparison to teenagers and adults, children, for example, have a worse comprehension of social interactions, which restricts their capacity to participate in complicated moral deliberation, especially before the age of 4 or 5, when their theory of mind has not yet fully developed (Fumagalli et al., 2010). Due in part to hormones and brain development as teenagers go through physical changes and the prefrontal cortex goes through specialised pruning, rates of deviant moral behaviour in adolescents, such as breaking norms and abusing ethics, are higher than those of people over 25. The debate is often whether judgment and reasoning or emotion and intuition are more central to morality. Killen and Smetana (2008) conducted an extensive review of morality definitions from various fields of moral cognition research. They concluded that judgment, beliefs, and values regarding social behavior and choosing a right course of action are fundamental to morality, whereas emotions, although salient, are useful in making moral judgments but not ultimately required for morality. So, the study of moral cognition does not aim to tell people what choices they should make. Rather, it attempts to explain how and why people make the moral choices that they do. Dual process model Research by Haidt (2001) suggests a dual-process model of moral cognition, which places more weight on intuition rather than reason as the main driver of moral judgments. Fast, automatic processing that is not accessible to introspection is how intuition is defined. On the other hand, reasoning is defined as deliberate, gradual processing. People are aware that they must go through a number of procedures in order to reach a conclusion when they are reasoning. Research has concentrated on determining the relative contributions of "slow" regulated processes and "rapid" automatic processes, such as emotional "gut reactions" (such as reasoning and self-control). We've used this dual-process architecture to analyse some well-known hypothetical problems. Moral foundation theory According to the website (https://moralfoundations.org/), Moral Foundations Theory was developed by a team of social and cultural psychologists to explain why morality differs so greatly throughout cultures while yet exhibiting numerous commonalities and recurring motifs. In a nutshell, the idea contends that "intuitive ethics" is based on a number of inborn psychological systems that are readily accessible to everyone. On top of these foundations, each culture builds values, stories, and institutions, resulting in the distinctive morality we observe throughout the world as well as conflicts within nations. The five bases for which the evidence is strongest, in our opinion, they are: 1) Care/harm: Our lengthy evolutionary history as mammals with attachment structures and the capacity to feel (and detest) the suffering of others is tied to this foundation. It is the foundation of the virtues of nurturing, tenderness, and kindness. 2) Fairness/cheating: The emergence of reciprocal altruism is connected to this basis. It inspires concepts of justice, rights, and independence. 3) Loyalty/betrayal: This tenet stems from our lengthy history as tribal creatures with the capacity to assemble mutable alliances. It serves as the foundation for the qualities of nationalism and selflessness. When individuals believe that "one for all, and all for one," it is active. 4) Authority/subversion: Our extensive evolutionary history as primates with hierarchical social interactions has moulded this basis. It forms the basis of leadership and followership virtues. 5) Sanctity/degradation: The psychology of distaste and contamination shaped this basis. It serves as the foundation for religious ideas about the need to live a higher, less base, and more noble life. It is the basis for the widely held belief that the body is a temple that can be sullied by immoral behavior and pollutants (a belief that is not exclusive to religious traditions). We think there are several other very great candidates for “foundationhood,” especially: 6) Liberty/oppression: This tenet deals with how people react to and feel toward others who oppress them and limit their freedom. Its perceptions frequently conflict with those of the foundation for authority. People unite in unity to oppose or overthrow oppressors because of their hate of bullies and dominators. Social Intuitionist Model the Social Intuitionist Model states that these intuitions provide an automatic, internal signal that guides moral judgment. The human ability for reason, in this account, is mainly reduced to the function of post hoc justification, functioning only to support earlier moral intuitions. The fact that the human brain reacts to harmful actions in less than a second suggests that moral intuitions form very quickly. Similar to this, many people have an innate sense that it is wrong to physically harm someone, even if doing so could save the lives of numerous others. For instance We propose that a better understanding of the biological nature of moral cognitions can serve as a first step in reducing the harm and violence that frequently results from these cognitions as well as forming treatments and preventative measures for abnormalities associated with these cognitions. Public health advocates have pushed for conceptualising and treating violence as an epidemic like any traditional disease spread through exposure and requiring intervention and containment protocols. See also Moral Morality Social cognition Psychology Clinical psychology References Marsh, Abigail A; Crowe, Samantha L; Yu, Henry H; Gorodetsky, Elena K; Goldman, David; Blair, R J R(2011).Serotonin Transporter Genotype (5-HTTLPR) Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgments. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025148 Karina R. Arutyunova, Anastasiia V. Bakhchina, Irina M. Sozinova, Yuri I. Alexandrov(2020) .The complexity of heart rate variability during moral judgement of actions and omissions. Elsevie Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05394 M. Fumagalli, R. Ferrucci , F. Mameli , S. Marceglia , S. Mrakic-Sposta , S. Zago , C. Lucchiari , D. Consonni , F. Nordio , G. Pravettoni , S. Cappa , A. Priori(2009) .Gender-related differences in moral judgments .DOI 10.1007/s10339-009-0335-2 Eric C. Anderson. Moral Cognition: A Dual-Process Model. https://escholarship.org/ Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108 (4) 814-834. MoralFoundations.org(n.d.). https://moralfoundations.org/