道德心理學

道德心理學（英文：moral psychology）係理論性心理學同倫理學嘅一個交界領域，專門研究人類喺作出道德判斷嗰陣嘅心理過程^[1]^[2]。

實驗方法

道德心理學呢家嘢可以用心理實驗嘅方法嚟研究。一個研究者可以搵班受試者返嚟去實驗室嗰度，叫佢哋分別噉睇一柞想像中嘅道德兩難（moral dilemma）情境，每個情境都涉及一位主角做出某啲行為，然後再要每個受試者答「喺呢個情境下，你覺得主角嘅行為合唔合符道德呢？」等嘅問題；攞到數據之後，佢就可以睇吓情境嘅特性會點樣影響受試者嘅判斷^[3]。

舉個簡單例子說明，而家搵咗班受試者返嚟，兩組睇嘅情境涉及一個主角：主角見到有架火車喺度全速衝緊向 5 個人嗰度，會撞死佢哋；不過，主角有能力令架火車轉去第條路軌嗰度，噉做會救到嗰 5 個人，但喺另外一條路軌上面又咁啱得咁橋有個人喺度，所以火車轉向嘅話，嗰個人會俾火車撞死；因為時間限制等嘅原因，主角淨係得兩個選擇－

睇住嗰 5 個人死，或者
郁手令架火車轉向，

喺個故仔入面，主角最後揀咗後者，然後研究者就問受試者覺得主角噉做啱唔啱；喺進階啲嘅研究上，研究者仲可以改變個情境嘅特性，例如變成主角唔郁手架火車將會撞死 7 個人（「唔郁手會撞死幾多個人」就係變化緊嘅情境特性），睇吓呢個改變會點樣影響受試者對「主角啱唔啱」嘅判斷^[4]。

重要概念

價值觀

價值觀（moral value）基本上可以想像成「一個人睇重邊啲道德上嘅因素」：有好多因素都可以左右人嘅道德判斷，例如假設第啲因素不變，啲人一般道德上都會比較認同展現出憐憫（簡單講就係避免引起其他人痛苦）嘅行為，同時啲人又傾向道德上認同幫手保存傳統嘅行為－好似憐憫同傳統等等都係道德上嘅因素，反映一個人嘅價值觀，影響個人對「一樣行為啱唔啱」嘅判斷；不過，唔同人對憐憫嘅重視程度唔同，而同時唔同人對傳統嘅重視程度又可以唔同，於是人同人之間喺道德判斷上就會有差異，例如有啲人會覺得「為咗保留傳統而反對同性婚姻（一樣俾好多人認為係對同性戀者展現出憐憫嘅嘢）」係正確嘅（重視傳統），而又有啲人因為比較睇重對同性戀者展現憐憫而覺得噉樣做唔啱，兩者好多時都會覺得對方係邪惡^[5]。

利他主義

不公平厭惡

睇埋

攷

↑ Wallace, R. Jay (November 29, 2007). "Moral Psychology". In Jackson, Frank; Smith, Michael (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. OUP Oxford. pp. 86-113.
↑ Hardy, Sam A.; Carlo, Gustavo (2011). "Moral Identity". In Schwartz, Seth J.; Luyckx, Koen; Vignoles, Vivian L. (eds.). Handbook of identity theory and research. Springer. pp. 495-513.
↑ Crockett, Molly J.; Kurth-Nelson, Zeb; Siegel, Jenifer Z.; Dayan, Peter; Dolan, Raymond J. (2 December 2014). "Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (48): 17320–17325.
↑ Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 536-554.
↑ Graham, Jesse; Haidt, Jonathan; Nosek, Brian A. (2009). "Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (5): 1029–1046.

[1] Wallace, R. Jay (November 29, 2007). "Moral Psychology". In Jackson, Frank; Smith, Michael (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. OUP Oxford. pp. 86-113.

[2] Hardy, Sam A.; Carlo, Gustavo (2011). "Moral Identity". In Schwartz, Seth J.; Luyckx, Koen; Vignoles, Vivian L. (eds.). Handbook of identity theory and research. Springer. pp. 495-513.

[3] Crockett, Molly J.; Kurth-Nelson, Zeb; Siegel, Jenifer Z.; Dayan, Peter; Dolan, Raymond J. (2 December 2014). "Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (48): 17320–17325.

[4] Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 536-554.

[5] Graham, Jesse; Haidt, Jonathan; Nosek, Brian A. (2009). "Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (5): 1029–1046.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]