Moral emotions - pedagogical perspective

Размещено на http://allbest.ru

Moral emotions - pedagogical perspective

Irena Barbara Przybylska, Edyta Nieduziak

Abstract

The aim of the article is to identify the status of emotions in the processes of passing judgements and taking moral decisions as well as to indicate the importance of emotional competence in moral development. In the first part of the text, we review the concept of morality, with particular reference to the emotivism of Alfred J. Ayer, Alan Gibbard's emotivism, and trends in the ethics of care by Nel Noddings as viewpoints that emphasize the affective factor. In the second part, using the concept of social, related to self-awareness and moral emotions, we argue for the role of emotions in the processes possessing moral significance. On that basis, we cautiously assume that people who have developed high emotional competence are also more morally competent. The last part is the search for pedagogical implications and justification of the thesis about the meaningful and functional relationship of emotional and moral development in the processes of upbringing. Since ethics concerns how we should live and since these areas are so much concerned with how we live, moral education ought to focus on developing moral skills (virtues), thanks to which moral feelings will guide children and adolescents.

Keywords; emotions, emotional competence, moral emotions, moral education.

Introduction

Taking into account the theses of neuroethics regarding the participation of emotions in the formulation of moral assessments and the rapid increase in knowledge about what emotions are, what types of emotions exist and what importance emotions have, the intention was made to look at the emotions that accompany moral decisions and actions in the article. The aim of the article is to analyse what moral emotions are and what their importance is. We will also consistently refer to the concept of morality - here, however, we would like to make a reservation - morality is of secondary interest to me, only in the conceptual framework of moral emotions. We also intend to search for the implications of the participation of emotions in the process of assessment and moral action for the theory and practice of upbringing.

The article is of theoretical nature and consists of three parts. In the first part, we review the most commonly applied theories of morality, taking into account the categories of feelings, emotions and intuition. The second part is intended to lead to conceptualising the concept of moral emotions and to indicate their importance in moral assessment and action. The concluding part focuses on recommendations for the practice of moral education, which take into account emotional competences often omitted in formal education.

1. "Cold" and "hot" theories of morality - a theoretical overview

The search for factors being of importance for moral action is the subject of research by philosophers, psychologists, sociologists and educators. In the classical concepts of morality, it was assumed that the formulation of assessments and making moral decisions is guided mainly by rational and conscious processes, and moral competence consists in assessing an event, taking into account a set of abstract values and moral norms, and in relating them to a specific situation (Spinoza 1677/2006; Kant 1785/2009; Mill 1863/2006). Similarly, cognitive development psychologists (Gibb, 1992; Kohlberg & Mayer, 2001; Piaget 1932/1967; Rest, 1980) attribute importance being of fundamental for moral behaviours to cognitive motivation and moral reasoning - moral assessment is recognised as universal, objective and independent of subjective experiences. Nowadays, in science in general, there is a turn towards the soft aspects of human functioning - towards emotions, intuition and subjective experiences. Theoretical constructs such as emotional intelligence, emotional culture, emotional competence, etc. as well as the moral emotions being of interest in this paper are a clear symptom of this turn. Reflections on moral emotions are conducted at the intersection of contemporary philosophical ethics (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2007) and theological ethics (Browning, 2006), moral psychology (Haidt, 2001, 2007), cognitive neuroscience (Churchland, 1996), positive psychology (Emmons, 1999) and the psychology of religion (Paloutizian & Park, 2005). The belief that people are endowed with a repertoire of emotions with a strong moral content is not new. They were termed moral feelings by Adam Smith (Smith, 1759/1989). Psychoanalysts (cf. Freud, 1984) and supporters of the theory of social learning (cf. Bandura & Walters, 1963) pointed to the role of emotions in inhibiting antisocial behaviours and generating prosocial activities. However, this idea remained beyond the scope of empirical research until the 1980s. One of the first elaborate theories radically elevating the role of emotions in the processes of judgement and moral action is emotivism.

When, in the 1930s, the existence of ethical norms as truth claims was questioned and their function limited to expressing emotions, the adjective "emotive" was used for the first time in relation to concepts in the field of ethics. A classical presentation of the theory of emotivism can be found in the works of Alfred J. Ayer, according to which in everyday language ethical concepts and statements serve only to express our attitudes towards something and evoke similar feelings and desires in others, or behaviours in a certain way (1984). Ayer thus questioned the status of moral judgements as logical assertions. Since judgements do not express beliefs, but only subjective experiences, emotivism in his view is considered radical (1984, p. 34). The model of explaining and highlighting the importance of moral feelings as a key term in the language of morality is also developed by the theory of expressivism (cf. Kuzniar, 2020, p. 51). Alan Gibbard (2006, p. 195) proposes a broad understanding of morality (norms of rational action) and a narrow one (norms of moral feelings). Moral assertions result directly in assertions about the obligation to experience moral feelings (plans for moral feelings), while normative epistemological beliefs result in plans for these beliefs. Moral conviction is a belief in the obligation to feel certain moral feelings, Gibbard primarily includes the feeling of guilt and indignation among them (2006, pp. 200-210).

Moral feelings are key concepts of morality in the approach of Ayer and Gibbard. The difference indicated by the interpreters of emotivism and expressivism concerns the essen ce of moral feelings. In Ayer's case, moral claims express moral feelings, while in Gibbard's case, they express states of acceptance for the plans for these feelings (cf. Kuzniar, 2020, p. 57). Gibbard's concept actually explains only the cognitive aspect of moral discourse, as it treats feelings as a part anticipated in moral beliefs. On the other hand, in Ayer's concept of ethical statements, emotions play a descriptive function and precisely because he attributes emotions a fundamental role in the process of moral judgement, his concept is often criticised (Gibbard, 2006). In the psychology of morality and in philosophy, the emotional turn is reflected in undermining the universalist ethics of justice (Kohlberg, 1981) and arguing for an emotive ethics of care (Gilligan, 1982). The difference in these orientations is revealed at the theoretical level, as well as in the formulated psychology of morality and, beyond the cognitive- emotional dichotomy, it is expressed in the difference between the universal an d the individual (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1988). The ethics of care, unlike the ethics of justice, does not disregard the individual characteristics, emotions and identity of the subject, which affects the model of interpersonal relationships. A "specific" one is different, not a "generalised" one; it has its history, needs and motivation, which must be understood in order to assess and act in accordance with values (Benhabib, 1986, pp. 82-86). Benhabib (1986, pp. 91-95) points out that in the ethics of care, norms are actually much more demanding than those related to the universalist perspective: beyond rights and duties, care, compassion and responsibility are the most important ones. In these feelings, cold judgement and rational judgement from a distance are not sufficient, it is necessary to engage in and experience the emotions of another person. Nel Noddings goes a step further and perceives the source of moral evil in the perception of oneself and others as symbols, representatives of a group or idea. According to the philosopher, replacing emotions with abstract moral considerations inevitably leads to objectification (1988). Noddings notes that framing moral dilemmas in relation to the rational aspect, while shifting them from the level of an individual problem to the level of abstraction, is a strategy with a long tradition in ethical thought. She points out that it was initiated by Aristotle, who, despite considering pity as a kind of passion, raised the issue of the right to pity. This means that for Aristotle, emotions, for example pity or anger, are subjected to "regulations" having their source in reason. According to Noddings, rationalisation and the tendency to generalize, i.e., to abstract from individual circumstances - make us disallow ourselves to be empathetic, and this maintains the tendency to inflict suffering in us (1988, pp. 216-220).

Although emotive and expressivist models are criticized, also due to the weakness of the logical justifications for the theses (cf. Kuzniar, 2020), ar e a position balancing cognitive aspects and a clear symptom of a turn towards emotional, intuitive aspects of moral functioning.

Nowadays, many researchers pay attention to the emotional aspects of morality and moral development, thus referring to the concept of Aristotle's virtue, morality as a product of feelings by David Hume or Adam Smith's moral feelings (cf. Gilligan, 2003). The role of feelings, emotions and intuition is described, among others, by Martin L. Hoffman, who draws attention to empath y as the ability to share the perspective of other people and thus as a motivator of pro-social thinking and action (Hoffman, 2006, p. 28). The views expressed by Jesse Prinz, who in his lectures presents two radical hypotheses about the nature of morality and emotions, also adhere to this trend. According to the philosopher, morality has an emotional foundation, and moral values are based on emotional reactions which are instilled by culture and are not conditioned by natural selection. Therefore, moral fa cts depend on emotional reactions, and these are determined by culture. He presents his views on the emotional essence of morality in two emotionist theses describing the role of emotions in the processes of evaluation and moral action (Prinz, 2007, p. 92). The first is the so-called metaphysical emotionism, which indicates that the identification of a person's moral skills/properties must be made with reference to an emotion or group of emotions. The other one, in turn, epistemic emotionism assumes that mo ral theory is related to emotions, in order to describe a moral theory/concept, one must first experience an emotional episode, go through it and link the situation with emotions. We find confirmation in everyday experience: when assessing violence against children we feel disgust, saying that the war is evil we feel outrage at Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist (2001) views the relationship between morality and emotionality in a similar manner. As an alternative to rationalist models of morality, he proposed the Social-Intuitionist Model (SIM) of moral judgement, which shows the essence of morality in practice. People, in a situation of moral evaluation and moral decision, behave - according to Haidt - more like "good lawyers" trying to convince others than "impartial judges" looking for objective truth (Haidt, 2001, p. 218). The intuitive aspect of Haidt's model refers to the source of moral judgement found in automatic affective reactions, rather than moral reasoning, which is a post-hoc process of seeking evidence to support one's initial intuitive reactions. In turn, the second aspect of SIM refers to the social context of moral judgement, because assessment is not only a private act of cognition, but a social process, conditioned by cultural experiences and acquired norms (Haidt, 2007).

SIM, as Haidt and co-workers clearly point out, is not intended to highlight the difference between emotions and cognition, but to indicate the interaction between these two ways of valuing - conscious moral discussion and intuitive (tacit) processes (so-called ones evaluating feelings), which are "amplified" by moral emotions (pro-social motivators) and virtues, i.e., social skills. The theoretical goal of Haidt's efforts is to shift the origins of moral reasoning from the so-called "cold" to "hot" ways of assessing and distinguishing a group of complex emotions participating in these processes, which will be discussed in the following paragraphs of the article (Haidt, 2007).

There is a growing interest in the role of emotions in the process of evaluation and moral decisionmaking, which is justified by the broadening of knowledge about emotions as experiences and also post- cognitive states, which are a kind of information about the situation of a person and his or her environment. Nowadays, the philosophical theses of the supporters of intuitive and automatic moral reactions are being verified by neurological and biological research on the brain (cf. Damasio, 2005; Le Doux, 2000), we also know much more about the role of emotions in thinking, acting and making decisions. In the light of the wealth of knowledge on the essence of emotional processes and their influence on motivation, cognitive and social functioning, one can hardly agree with the thesis that emotions cannot be discursive and cannot carry cognitive content - and such are the arguments used by the supporters of the rational explanation of moral decisions in order to undermine the role of emotions in the processes of passing judgements. Neuroethicians point to the specific areas of the brain activated in the process of moral evaluation and decision-making, which can be noticed in brain imaging studies. Among others, the research by Antonio Damasio (2005) on "acquired sociopathy" shows that without emotions, we become unable to assess (feel) the rightfulness or wrongfulness of even simple decisions, while the decisions made without taking emotions into account are not more ethical. Having analysed collected data, Damasio concludes that "cold" reasoning processes require affective ("hot") mechanisms, e.g., moral emotions (2005a, p. 37-46). Other empirical studies confirm the interactive relationships between feelings, reasoning and moral behaviour, which is why the latter seems to have both cognitive and emotional determinants (Rest, 1980; Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Trempaia & Czyzowska, 2003). Increasingly often, emotions are included in the concepts instituting order in moral processes. Including emotions in the process of evaluation and moral action, of course, has implications for the theory and practice of upbringing, which will be discussed in the last part of the text.

2. Moral emotions - what are they, what are the types of emotions and how do they participate in moral processes?

Contemporary psychology ascribes the status of socially construed, constructive and cognitively conditioned processes to emotions (cf. Ekman, 1999; Lazarus, 1999). From the point of view of the essence and role of moral emotions, it is interesting to note their relational character and valuing processes present in the process of incitement and duration of emotions. Richard Lazarus argues that each emotion expresses a kind of relational meaning. Essential factors that precede emotions are related, on the one hand, to the individual, and on the other, to the environment, and these are the personality variables, the structure of "self" and the hierarchy of individual goals (1999, p. 304). Among other things, self-esteem, moral values, ideals, perception of other people and their well-being are the factors influencing the process of cognitive assessment and the emergence of emotions. Taking into account personal goals and the possibility of achieving them in a specific situation: "Each emotion results from the assessment of a specific profit or loss that has already arisen or will arise from the transaction of the individual with the environment and depends on the relational meaning constructed by the person" (Lazarus, 1999, p. 306).

Despite the fact that the incitement of every emotion involves cognitive processes assessing the possibility of achieving one's own needs, goals and values, not every emotion can be termed a moral one. We cannot call so emotions which are automatic and represent little cognitive con tent. In their independent concepts, Paul Ekman (1999) and Robert Plutchik (after Panksepp, 2005) call them basic or universal emotions. emotional moral teacher education

Automatic emotions result from people's own needs, are reactive and bring about a state of readiness. Moral emotions differ from basic emotions in that they are related to caring for other people and relationships with them. In this sense, moral emotions belong to a wider class of social emotions, which refer to one's own "self" in a peculiar way and come from cognitive assessments of various aspects of reality, especially transactions with the environment important from the point of view of personal ideals (e.g., shame) and moral values (e.g., guilt).

Damasio points to an autonomous group of social emotions which accompany moral behaviour (2005, pp. 141-162; Fredrickson, 2004). Jaak Panksepp (2005, p. 193) suggests a taxonomy of emotions in which he introduces a class of higher core feelings, such as shame, guilt, contempt, sense of humour, empathy, compassion.

Complex emotions can be aroused by thought processes relating to the sense of one's own "self", and this type of emotions is called self-conscious emotions (Lewis, 2005, p. 787; Tracy, Robins & Sherman, 2007). The above terms come from various theoretical concepts, but what the abovementioned group of experiences holds in common is that they are post-cognitive (they appear as a result of the thought process) and reflective. Feeling these emotions means the need to activate specific standards of the Self and compare the current situation with the desired vision of the Self (Biatec ka-Pikul & Stepien-Nvcz, 2011).

Increasingly, psychology speaks of moral emotions (Haidt, 2003; Moll, 2007, pp. 15-16) or moral feelings, which are "[...] reactions that people experience in the face of their own moral transgressions, i.e., in situations of violation of the recognised standards of behaviour" (Strus & Slaski, 2007, p. 16). With regard to development, moral emotions, and more broadly - reflective ones, are the so-called late emotions, which appear at the higher stages of cognitive and personal development, because they are triggered by complex cognitive processes, such as self-esteem and self-reflection. In the assessment of events, they include self-understanding, social context (assessment of other people) as well as the adopted value system (Tangney & Deaaring, 2002). Reflexive emotions, according to the cognitive - attributive theory, are post-cognitive, because they are preceded by an assessment of reality or its anticipated possible states (Lewis 2005, p. 784). Psychologists, neuroethicians and anthropologists include pride, embarrassment, humiliation and guilt in this group of emotions. These emotions have a social significance and are socially constructed.

The cognitive process leading to this type of emotions include the activation of norms which have been assimilated in the process of socialisation (upbringing), then the cognitive assessment of whether the state of Self and Beyond-Self match the patterns, and finally, the attributions associated with the Self, when the state of affairs is defined as more or less positive or negative, e.g. I have behaved well/badly and therefore I feel good/bad (Lewis, 2005, p. 787). Emotions based on self-awareness, as well as selfawareness itself, depend on the general cognitive level, willingness to reflect, ability to compare reality with norms, and thus also the knowledge of social norms (Ginger & Jarymowicz, 2011, p. 8). Finally, naming emotions and indicating the relationship with the situation and its consequences require the skills of verbalisation and communication. Therefore, reflective, complex, post-cognitive emotions are not given to us, but develop in the course of experience and are not automatic (Lewis, 2005, p. 795).

The cognitive assessment appearing in the attribution process may also concern general principles of what is good and what is bad, i.e., explicitly moral principles (Piaget, 1932/1967; Kohlberg, 1981). In addition to emotions related to internal standards of self-assessment (reference to superego constructions, ideal Self), emotions may appear in relation to the abstract concepts of good and evil (Biatecka-Pikul & Stypien-Nycz, 2011). This way, in the process of judgement emotions allow us to transcend the egocentric perspective and to focus on other people, nature or animals. Shame, guilt, pride or self-acceptance appear as a result of the assessment of one's own Self, and the source of this assessment is the standard of Self (Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Also, being touched, admiration, indignation at the violation of someone's freedom - have transgressive origins in relation to moral concepts (Lewis, 2005, p. 790).

The cognitive-attributional theory of emotions allows for analysing the relationship between reflective emotions and judgements and actions regulated by moral norms. The model explicitly shows that the relationship between emotion and assessment is bidirectional (Czub & Brzezinska, 2013, p p. 2730). In the case of basic (automatic) emotions, the incitement/emotional state affects the perception, assessment and decision-making without the control of the subject. The diffusiveness of emotions with an automatic origin means that the related assessment is holistic, homogeneous and also includes irrelevant elements, and information processing is biased (Imbir & Jarymowicz, 2011, p. 20). Such emotions, when not controlled, can disrupt perceptions, understanding of the situation and lead to misjudgements, being also capable of disturbing moral judgement (Ekman & Davidson, 1999). On the other hand, post-cognitive emotions are focused on the element assessed, the evaluation is heterogeneous, so that we can see the strengths and weaknesses of the phenomenon, the disadvantages and advantages of the person (Jarymowicz & Karwowska, 2003). Postcognitive emotions are appropriate in the process of formulating moral judgements and manifest themselves, among others, in the experiencing of moral dilemmas by people described as having high moral standards. Therefore, it can be cautiously assumed that people who have developed high emotional competence - who recognise complex emotional states, link them to specific situations and direct their behaviour - are also more morally competent, that is, their moral judgements are more accurate, and the decisions made comply with the adopted system of values (cf. Jarymowicz & Karwowska, 2003; Lewis, 2005).

Moral emotions as a guardian of. While there is still a lively debate about the role that moral emotions play in shaping moral judgments (Haidt, 2001; Hauser, 2006), their impact on moral action is generally agreed upon: "Emotions - argues Hauser - act as a well-designed motor engine that drives us in different directions depending on the task, influencing the perception of planned or perceived action" (2006, p. 188).

[2] Bandura, A., & Walters, R.H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York.

[3] Benhabib, S. (1986). The Generalized and the Concrete Other: The Kohlberg Gilligan Controversy and Feminist Theory. Praxis International, 5(4), 402-424.

[4] Biafecka-Pikul, M., & St^pien-Nycz, M. (2011). Dynamics of emotional development: experiencing, understanding and regulating emotions. In. D. Dolinski, W. Btaszczak (Eds.), Dynamics of emotions. Theory and practice, 215-238. Warszawa. (in Polish)

[5] Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection: Let go of who you think you're supposed to be and embrace who you are. Hazelden.

[6] Czub, T. & Brzezinska, A. I. (2013). The regulatory value of shame in the process of identity formation. Psychologia Rozwojowa, 1(18), 27- 43. (in Polish)

[7] Browning, Don S. (Ed.), (2006). Universalism vs. Relativism: Making Moral Judgments in a Changing, Pluralistic and Threatening World. Lanham.