What do you think?
Rate this book
Making Moral Judgments: Psychological Perspectives on Morality, Ethics, and Decision-Making
This fascinating new book examines diversity in moral judgements, drawing on recent work in social, personality, and evolutionary psychology, reviewing the factors that influence the moral judgments people make.
Why do reasonable people so often disagree when drawing distinctions between what is morally right and wrong? Even when individuals agree in their moral pronouncements, they may employ different standards, different comparative processes, or entirely disparate criteria in their judgments. Examining the sources of this variety, the author expertly explores morality using ethics position theory, alongside other theoretical perspectives in moral psychology, and shows how it can relate to contemporary social issues from abortion to premarital sex to human rights. Also featuring a chapter on applied contexts, using the theory of ethics positions to gain insights into the moral choices and actions of individuals, groups, and organizations in educational, research, political, medical, and business settings, the book offers answers that apply across individuals, communities, and cultures.
Investigating the relationship between people's personal moral philosophies and their ethical thoughts, emotions, and actions, this is fascinating reading for students and academics from psychology and philosophy and anyone interested in morality and ethics.
Why do reasonable people so often disagree when drawing distinctions between what is morally right and wrong? Even when individuals agree in their moral pronouncements, they may employ different standards, different comparative processes, or entirely disparate criteria in their judgments. Examining the sources of this variety, the author expertly explores morality using ethics position theory, alongside other theoretical perspectives in moral psychology, and shows how it can relate to contemporary social issues from abortion to premarital sex to human rights. Also featuring a chapter on applied contexts, using the theory of ethics positions to gain insights into the moral choices and actions of individuals, groups, and organizations in educational, research, political, medical, and business settings, the book offers answers that apply across individuals, communities, and cultures.
Investigating the relationship between people's personal moral philosophies and their ethical thoughts, emotions, and actions, this is fascinating reading for students and academics from psychology and philosophy and anyone interested in morality and ethics.
200 pages, Paperback
Published November 6, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 14, 2020
This book focuses on the psychological aspects of morality. It’s main tool is survey data. After covering how we assess moral worthiness Donelson R. Forsyth goes over a particular viewpoint based on his research and a survey produce by it, which positions a person’s moral personality in one of four categories: exceptionists, subjectivists, absolutists, and situationists based on their scores on scales of idealism and relativism. Then he covers some of the major psychcological theories and how his position theory fits or does not fit with them. Next he looks at individual differences and how we make moral judgments. Then he covers moral behaviors and emotions. After this he looks at morality as seen in differing cultures. Finally, he discusses morality in various situations, primarily business, education, and research.
The following are comments I have made on parts of the text. Kindle locations are in brackets [].
[282] “The elementary forces in ethics are probably as plural as those of physics are.” (From quote of William James) Not if a grand theory of everything is found then there would will be only one force. Still four is a lot less complicated than the forces (if this is a valid metaphor) ethics appears to have.
[331] “We are all psychologists of a sort, for whenever we encounter other people we set to work deciphering them. We do not passively observe those around us, but instead actively scrutinize others’ actions, drawing inferences about their dispositional tendencies, their preferences and attitudes, and their intentions and designs. When we meet other people we intuitively gather the data we need to make these inferences: We appraise their appearance, their gestures, their words, and their actions.” This is known as folk psychology in philosophy of mind. This is a default position, which eliminative materialism seeks to replaced with a detailed neuroscience.
[423] “Haidt’s (2001) social intuitionist model of moral judgment, for example, suggests that a quick, emotional intuition or “gut feeling” often guides people’s moral judgments, and that these emotional reactions may prompt them to make moral decisions that are not entirely consistent with reason. Only after the judgment is made does cognition’s role become activated as a post hoc justification tool.” It is not an either/or thing. You think and feel together.
[641] “Taken in combination, these five theories [discussed earlier] provide a fuller explanation for morality than any one taken separately.” This is because morality is not so simple of a phenomenon, so multiple viewpoints are needed, like multiple philosophical approaches, including a good dose of pragmatism.
[1299] Some “assume that the judgments of some individuals are guided by a deliberate and rational review of the relevant issues.” It is more likely that moral judgments are some of the quickest judgments we make. Reasoning usually comes after our gut reactions to moral situations and enter into the evaluation of what to do or not to do about it.
[2956] “German Nazis somehow believed that killing all their fellow citizens whose religion was Judaism was morally acceptable.” They were not killed because of their religion, but because of the absurd racial and warp conspiracy theories.
I found the book good as far as it goes. The authors’ and his collaborators ethics position theory is interesting and looks to be well researched. How helpful this work will be in the overall picture of morality I am not so sure, but I admit to not being all that interested in this side of morality; I much prefer the philosophical side.
If you are interested in morals from the psychological side it might be worth a read. If your looking for a more philosophical analysis and while the book touches on it some, it might not be the best read for you.
The following are comments I have made on parts of the text. Kindle locations are in brackets [].
[282] “The elementary forces in ethics are probably as plural as those of physics are.” (From quote of William James) Not if a grand theory of everything is found then there would will be only one force. Still four is a lot less complicated than the forces (if this is a valid metaphor) ethics appears to have.
[331] “We are all psychologists of a sort, for whenever we encounter other people we set to work deciphering them. We do not passively observe those around us, but instead actively scrutinize others’ actions, drawing inferences about their dispositional tendencies, their preferences and attitudes, and their intentions and designs. When we meet other people we intuitively gather the data we need to make these inferences: We appraise their appearance, their gestures, their words, and their actions.” This is known as folk psychology in philosophy of mind. This is a default position, which eliminative materialism seeks to replaced with a detailed neuroscience.
[423] “Haidt’s (2001) social intuitionist model of moral judgment, for example, suggests that a quick, emotional intuition or “gut feeling” often guides people’s moral judgments, and that these emotional reactions may prompt them to make moral decisions that are not entirely consistent with reason. Only after the judgment is made does cognition’s role become activated as a post hoc justification tool.” It is not an either/or thing. You think and feel together.
[641] “Taken in combination, these five theories [discussed earlier] provide a fuller explanation for morality than any one taken separately.” This is because morality is not so simple of a phenomenon, so multiple viewpoints are needed, like multiple philosophical approaches, including a good dose of pragmatism.
[1299] Some “assume that the judgments of some individuals are guided by a deliberate and rational review of the relevant issues.” It is more likely that moral judgments are some of the quickest judgments we make. Reasoning usually comes after our gut reactions to moral situations and enter into the evaluation of what to do or not to do about it.
[2956] “German Nazis somehow believed that killing all their fellow citizens whose religion was Judaism was morally acceptable.” They were not killed because of their religion, but because of the absurd racial and warp conspiracy theories.
I found the book good as far as it goes. The authors’ and his collaborators ethics position theory is interesting and looks to be well researched. How helpful this work will be in the overall picture of morality I am not so sure, but I admit to not being all that interested in this side of morality; I much prefer the philosophical side.
If you are interested in morals from the psychological side it might be worth a read. If your looking for a more philosophical analysis and while the book touches on it some, it might not be the best read for you.
December 29, 2022
Excellent book.
I enjoyed reading this book, which is full of examples, studies and theory. A must read. Not to be missed.
I enjoyed reading this book, which is full of examples, studies and theory. A must read. Not to be missed.
December 4, 2025
This is a fascinating, well researched and well crafted book. It offers a considered investigation of judgments. How do people decide what they decide? How do humans gather information and interpret it?
This is a profoundly appropriate book for this historical moment. Forsyth confirms that, "participants who made their judgements more quickly tended to be more negative than participants who made their judgements more slowly."
Virilio, indeed.
But this book offers a profound - and structured - analysis of levels of responsibility and foreseeability, alongside a pretty robust (!!!) investigation of leadership.
Fascinating.
This is a profoundly appropriate book for this historical moment. Forsyth confirms that, "participants who made their judgements more quickly tended to be more negative than participants who made their judgements more slowly."
Virilio, indeed.
But this book offers a profound - and structured - analysis of levels of responsibility and foreseeability, alongside a pretty robust (!!!) investigation of leadership.
Fascinating.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews