1/ What's wrong with Moral Foundations Theory? (And how to get moral psychology right) <a long thread>pic.twitter.com/B6hst48WE4
Show this thread
-
4/ Foremost amongst these accounts has been
@jonhaidt’s Moral Foundations Theory (MFT).Show this thread
5/ MFT argues that “Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make cooperative social life possible.
-
-
6/ What’s more, MFT argues that because humans face multiple social problems, they have multiple moral values. They rely on multiple ‘foundations’ when making moral decisions. These include: Care, Fairness, Ingroup, Authority & Puritypic.twitter.com/ft6lNDajq1
Show this thread -
7/ These Moral Foundations have been operationalised, and measured, by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021847 … You can complete the questionnaire here: http://www.yourmorals.org
Show this thread -
8/ MFT/MFQ have had an enormous impact on moral psychology. The central papers have been cited 100s of times. There is a huge literature applying MFT to bioethics, charity, environmentalism, psychopathy, religion, and especially politics https://www.moralfoundations.org/publications
Show this thread -
9/ HOWEVER, MFT and MFQ have a number of theoretical and empirical problems.
Show this thread -
10/ The main problem is that MFT is not based on any particular theory of cooperation, or indeed on any explicit theory at all.
Show this thread -
11/ Indeed, Haidt, has explicitly argued against taking an ‘a priori or principled’ approach to moral psychology, and advocated an ‘ad hoc’ approach insteadhttps://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2011.21638 …
Show this thread -
12/ And, sure enough, the original foundations were not derived from any particular theory, but gleaned from a review of five previous works on moral psychology. This has lead to a number of critical omissions:
Show this thread -
13/ MFT has no foundation dedicated to kin altruism. (The MFQ does have two items pertaining to family, but they appear under Fairness and Ingroup.)
Show this thread -
14/ MFT has no foundation dedicated to reciprocal altruism. MFT conflates reciprocity (a solution to iterated prisoners’ dilemmas) with fairness (a solution to bargaining problems). And the MFQ has no items pertaining to reciprocity at all.
Show this thread -
15/ MFT has no foundation, and the MFQ has no items, dedicated to competitive altruism (costly signals of status), such as bravery or generosity.
Show this thread -
16/ And MFT has no foundation dedicated to possession or property rights (the prohibition of theft). (The MFQ’s only mention of property occurs in an item about inheritance, under Fairness.)
Show this thread -
17/ MFT also includes foundations that are not tied to any particular form of cooperation.
Show this thread -
18/ MFT has a foundation dedicated to Care. But ‘care’, like ‘altruism’, is a generic term. It doesn’t distinguish between the different theories/psychological mechanisms for care (kin altruism, mutualism, reciprocal altruism, competitive altruism, etc)
Show this thread -
19/ And MFT has a foundation dedicated to Purity. But avoiding “people w/ diseases, parasites [&] waste products” is not itself a moral problem (any more than, say, avoiding predators), and has no explicated connection to cooperation…
Show this thread -
20/ …on the contrary, 'purity' is described as an “odd corner” of morality because it is not “concerned with how we treat other people”https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/0011526042365555 …
Show this thread -
21/ So although MFT claims to be an evolutionary-cooperative account of morality, it excludes the four most well-established types of evolved cooperation: kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, competitive altruism & respect for first possession.
Show this thread -
22/ And MFT includes two categories – generic altruism & pathogen avoidance – that are not types of evolved cooperation.
Show this thread -
23/ MFT also has empirical problems. The main problem is that MFT’s five-factor model of morality has not been well supported by studies using the MFQ.
Show this thread -
24/ Some of the original studies, as well as replications in Italy, New Zealand, Sweden and Turkey, and a 27 country study (using the short-form MFQ), have found that MFT’s five-factor model falls short of the conventionally ‘acceptable’ degree of model fit (CFIs<0.90)
Show this thread -
25/ And so despite promising five moral domains, the MFQ typically delivers only two [Care-Fairness] and [Ingroup-Authority-Purity]. And it is this two-domain model that is often used in research.
Show this thread -
26/ Other research has taken issue with specific foundations, especially Purity. But that’s a topic for another thread
@kurtjgrayShow this thread -
27/ To their credit, proponents of MFT acknowledge these concerns – for example, that the original list of foundations was “arbitrary”, based on a limited review of only “five books and articles”, and never intended to be “exhaustive”…
Show this thread -
28/ … and they have positively encouraged research that could “demonstrate the existence of an additional foundation, or show that any of the current five foundations should be merged or eliminated” http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4 …
Show this thread -
29/ And so that is what my colleagues and I have done:
Show this thread -
30/ I went back to first principles – the evolutionary game theory of cooperation – identified (at least) seven distinct types of cooperation, and used them to explain seven distinct types of morality
#moralityascooperation http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_2 …pic.twitter.com/swW9L5X2yU
Show this thread -
31/ We then showed that these seven types of morality can be found all around the world, and are probably cross-cultural universals
@drdanmullinshttps://evolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-the-world …Show this thread -
32/ And we have now used this framework to develop a new measure of moral values – the Morality-as-Cooperation Questionnaire (MAC-Q) – that promises, and delivers, seven moral domains
@cjvanlissa https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.10.008 …Show this thread -
33/ The MAC-Q shows that all seven types of cooperation are considered morally relevant – in fact, MAC’s new domains (family, reciprocity, heroism, property) are considered *more* morally relevant than the domains shared with MFT (group, authority, fairness).
Show this thread -
34/ The MAC-Q also shows that each type of cooperation gives rise to a distinct moral domain – family, group, reciprocity, heroism, deference, fairness, property.
Show this thread -
35/ Thus the MAC-Q introduces four new moral domains (family, reciprocity, heroism, property). It distinguishes family from group, and reciprocity from fairness. And it does a better job than the MFQ of distinguishing between 'group loyalty' and 'respect for authority'
Show this thread - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.