본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

도덕 판단에서 나타나는 도덕-인습 구분에 대한 논쟁과 함의

A critical review and implications of the moral-conventional distinction in moral judgment

이승민|설선혜
한국인지과학회 (The Korean Society for Cognitive Science)|2018.06|인지과학 (Korean Journal of Cognitive Science)|제29권 제2호|pp. 137-160|DOI 10.19066/cogsci.2018.29.2.004

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

정서moral parochialismmoral-conventional distinctionsocial domain theory도덕-인습 판단사회 영역 이론도덕 지역주의도덕 다원주의moral sentimentalismmoral pluralism
주제분류인지과학

초록

본 논문은 도덕 판단에서 나타나는 도덕-인습 구분에 관한 최근의 논쟁들을 개관하고 그 함의를 검토하고자 한다. 전통적인 도덕 판단에 대한 연구들은 규범 위반에 대한 판단에서 타인의 규범 위반 행위에 대한 평가와 함께 위반한 규범의 도덕-인습 차원에서의 분류를 함께 고려해왔다. Kohlberg와 Piaget의 인지 발달 이론을 발전시킨 Turiel(1983)은 도덕 원칙이 인습과 명확하게 구별된다고 보고 도덕-인습 구분의 기준을 제시하였다. 도덕은 보살핌과 정의의 영역에 특수하며, 보편성/객관성을 지닌다는 것이다. 이러한 관점은 전통적인 도덕 심리학에서 일반적으로 받아들여져 왔으나 최근 들어 지속적인 도전을 받아왔다. 본 논문에서는 도덕-인습 구분 기준에 대한 비판을 도덕 감정 이론(moral sentimentalism)과 도덕 지역주의(moral parochialism), 도덕 다원주의(moral pluralism)로 구분하여 살펴본다. 도덕 감정 이론은 도덕 판단에서 정서의 역할을 강조하며 도덕과 인습이 정서-비정서 차원의 연속선상에 혼재할 수 있다고 제안한다. 도덕 지역주의는 인류학과 비교문화 심리학의 연구 결과들을 바탕으로, 규범 위반 행위가 집단의 유지와 집단 내 개인의 존속에 의미가 있는 경우에만 규범 위반에 대한 부정적 평가와 처벌 의사가 강하게 형성될 수 있기 때문에 도덕 위반에 대한 판단도 인습에 대한 판단만큼이나 상대적일 수 있다고 주장한다. 도덕 다원주의에서는 문화와 개인차에 따라서 다양한 종류의 도덕적 직관이 존재할 수 있다는 점에서 보살핌과 정의의 차원만 도덕에 해당한다는 가정에 의문을 제기한다. 이러한 새로운 관점들은 기존의 합리주의적 도덕 발달 이론에서 가정하였던 도덕-인습의 구분이 사람들이 실제로 규범 위반을 판단하는 양상을 적절하게 반영하지 않을 수도 있음을 시사하며 체계적인 후속 연구의 필요성을 제안한다.

Abstract

The present article reviews recent arguments on the moral-conventional distinction in moral judgment and discusses the implications for moral psychology research. Traditional research on moral judgment has considered both the evaluation of transgressive actions of others and the categorization of the norms on the moral-conventional dimension. Kohlberg, Piaget, and Turiel (1983) regard moral principles to be clearly distinguished from social-conventional norms and suggested criteria for the moral-conventional distinction. They assume that the moral domain should be specifically related to the value of care and justice, and the judgment for the moral transgression should be universal and objective. The cognitive developmental approach or social domain theory, which has been generally accepted by moral psychology researchers, is recently being challenged. In this article, we introduce three different approaches that criticize the assumptions for the moral-conventional distinction, namely, moral sentimentalism, moral parochialism, and moral pluralism. Moral sentimentalism emphasizes the role of emotion in moral judgment and suggests that moral and conventional norms can be continuously distributed on an affective-nonaffective dimension. Moral parochialism, based on the evidence from anthropology and cross-cultural psychology, asserts that norm transgression can be the object of moral judgment only when the action is relevant to the survival and reproduction of a group and the individuals within the group; judgment for moral transgression can be as relative as that for conventional transgression. Moral pluralism suggests multiple moral intuitions that vary with culture and individual, and questions the assumption of the social domain theory that morality is confined to care and justice. These new perspectives imply that the moral-conventional distinction may not properly tap into the nature of moral judgment and that further research is needed.

참고문헌 (81)

  1. 박영신, "한국 아동들의 도덕적 규칙과 사회관습적 규칙에 대한 이해의 발달과 그 특징", 한국심리학회지 : 발달, 14(2), pp.83~104 (2001)
  2. Agerström, J., "Warm and competent Hassan=cold and incompetent Eric : A harsh equation of real-life hiring discrimination", Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), pp.359~366 (2012)
  3. Aharoni, E., "Can psychopathic offenders discern moral wrongs? A new look at the moral", conventional distinction, 2012, pp.121(2), 484~497
  4. Avramova, Y. R., "Emotion and moral judgment", Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews : Cognitive Science, 4(2), pp.169~178 (2013)
  5. Barrett, H. C., "Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variation in the role of intentions in moral judgment", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), pp.4688~4693 (2016)
  6. Batson, C. D., "Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis", Journal of personality and social psychology, 55(1), pp.52~77 (1988)
  7. Blair, R. J. R., "The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy", Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(9), pp.387~392 (2007)
  8. Blair, R. J. R., "The psychopathic individual : a lack of responsiveness to distress cues?", Psychophysiology, 34(2), pp.192~198 (1997)
  9. Chapman, H. A., "Things rank and gross in nature : a review and synthesis of moral disgust", Psychological bulletin, 139(2), pp.300~327 (2013)
  10. Cima, M., "Psychopaths know right from wrong but don’t care", Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 5(1), pp.59~67 (2010)
  11. Cole Wright, J., "The cognitive and affective dimensions of moral conviction : Implications for attitudinal and behavioral measures of interpersonal tolerance", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), pp.1461~1476 (2008)
  12. Decety, J., "Interpersonal harm aversion as a necessary foundation for morality : A developmental neuroscience perspective", Development and psychopathology, 30(1), pp.153~164 (2018)
  13. De Waal, F. B., "Good natured(No. 87)" (1996), Harvard University Press
  14. Eidelman, S., "Derogating black sheep : Individual or group protection?", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), pp.602~609 (2003)
  15. Eres, R., "Common and distinct neural networks involved in fMRI studies investigating morality : an ALE meta-analysis", Social neuroscience, 13(4), pp.384~398 (2018)
  16. Fehr, E., "Altruistic punishment in humans", Nature, 415(6868), pp.137~140 (2002)
  17. Fessler, D. M., "Moral parochialism and contextual contingency across seven societies", Proc. R. Soc. B, 282(1813), pp.20150907~ (2015)
  18. Gibbs, J. C., "Moral Development and Reality : Beyond Theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt" (2014), Oxford University Press
  19. Gill, M. B., "Sentimentalist pluralism : Moral psychology and philosophical ethics", Philosophical Issues, 18(1), pp.143~163 (2008)
  20. Gilligan, C., "In a different voice : Women's conceptions of self and of morality", Harvard educational review, 47(4), pp.481~517 (1977)
  21. Gollwitzer, M., "What you did only matters if you are one of us", Social Psychology, 41(1), pp.20~26 (2010)
  22. Graham, J., "Explaining away differences in moral judgment : Comment on Gray and Keeney(2015)", Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), pp.869~873 (2015)
  23. Graham, J., "Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism", Advances in experimental social psychology, 47, pp.55~130 (2013)
  24. Graham, J., "Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations", Journal of personality and social psychology, 96(5), pp.1029~1046 (2009)
  25. Graham, J., "Mapping the moral domain", Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(2), pp.366~385 (2011)
  26. Graham J, "The Atlas of Moral Psychology: Mapping Good and Evil in the Mind" (2016), Guilford Press
  27. Gray, K., "Impure or just weird? Scenario sampling bias raises questions about the foundation of morality", Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), pp.859~868 (2015)
  28. Gray, K., "The moral dyad : A fundamental template unifying moral judgment", Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), pp.206~215 (2012)
  29. Greene, J., "How(and where)does moral judgment work?", Trends in cognitive sciences, 6(12), pp.517~523 (2002)
  30. Greene, J. D., "An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment", Science, 293(5537), pp.2105~2108 (2001)
  31. Haidt, J., "The emotional dog and its rational tail : a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment", Psychological review, 108(4), pp.814~834 (2001)
  32. Haidt, J., "The new synthesis in moral psychology", Science, 316(5827), pp.998~1002 (2007)
  33. Haidt, J., "Morality", Perspectives on psychological science, 3(1), pp.65~72 (2008)
  34. Haidt, J., "The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion" (2012), Vintage
  35. Haidt, J., "Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog?", Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), pp.613~628 (1993)
  36. Huebner, B., "The role of emotion in moral psychology", Trends in cognitive sciences, 13(1), pp.1~6 (2009)
  37. Huebner, B., "The moral-conventional distinction in mature moral competence", Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(1), pp.1~26 (2010)
  38. Kagan, J., "The nature of the child" (1984), Basic Books
  39. Kelly, D., "Harm, affect, and the moral", conventional distinction, 2007, pp.22(2), 117~131
  40. Kerr, N. L., "Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments", Law and Human Behavior, 19(6), pp.545~567 (1995)
  41. Killen, M., "Handbook of moral development", pp.137~172 (2006), Psychology Press
  42. Kim, E. B., "Does children’s moral compass waver under social pressure? Using the conformity paradigm to test preschoolers’ moral and social-conventional judgments", Journal of experimental child psychology, 150, pp.241~251 (2016)
  43. Kohlberg, L., "Handbook of socialization theory and research" (1969), Rand McNally
  44. Leenders, I., "Moral", non‐moral domain shift in young adolescents in relation to delinquent behaviour, 2005, pp.23(1), 65~79
  45. Levy, N., "Imaginative Resistance and the Moral", Conventional Distinction, 2005, pp.18(2), 231~241
  46. Marques, J. M., "The"black sheep effect" : Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification", European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), pp.1~16 (1988)
  47. Moll, J., "Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain", Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(8), pp.319~321 (2007)
  48. Nichols, S., "Norms with feeling : Towards a psychological account of moral judgment", Cognition, 84(2), pp.221~236 (2002)
  49. Nichols, S., "Sentimental rules : On the natural foundations of moral judgment" (2004), Oxford University Press
  50. Nichols, S., "Are children moral objectivists? Children's judgments about moral and response-dependent properties", Cognition, 90(2), pp.B23~B32 (2003)
  51. Nucci, L., "Conceptions of personal issues : A domain distinct from moral or societal concepts", Child development, 52(1), pp.114~121 (1981)
  52. Nucci, L. P., "Social interactions and the development of social concepts in preschool children", Child development, 49(2), pp.400~407 (1978)
  53. Nussbaum, M. C., "Advances in Psychology (Vol. 137)", pp.61~117 (2005), North-Holland
  54. Pillutla, M. M., "Unfairness, anger, and spite : Emotional rejections of ultimatum offers", Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 68(3), pp.208~224 (1996)
  55. Prinz, J., "The emotional basis of moral judgments", Philosophical explorations, 9(1), pp.29~43 (2006)
  56. Prinz, J., "The emotional construction of morals" (2007), Oxford University Press
  57. Prinz, J. J., "The moral psychology handbook" (2010), Oxford University Press
  58. Quintelier, K. J. P., "Confounds in moral", conventional studies, 2015, pp.18(1), 58~67
  59. Quintelier, K. J., "The case of the drunken sailor : On the generalisable wrongness of harmful transgressions", Thinking & Reasoning, 18(2), pp.183~195 (2012)
  60. Royzman, E. B., "You make me sick : Moral dyspepsia as a reaction to third-party sibling incest", Motivation and Emotion, 32(2), pp.100~108 (2008)
  61. Royzman, E. B., "Unsentimental ethics : Towards a content-specific account of the moral-conventional distinction", Cognition, 112(1), pp.159~174 (2009)
  62. Schein, C., "The unifying moral dyad : Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), pp.1147~1163 (2015)
  63. Schnall, S., "Disgust as embodied moral judgment", Personality and social psychology bulletin, 34(8), pp.1096~1109 (2008)
  64. Schmidt, M. F., "Young children enforce social norms selectively depending on the violator’s group affiliation", Cognition, 124(3), pp.325~333 (2012)
  65. Schmidt, M. F., "Young children enforce social norms", Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), pp.232~236 (2012)
  66. Shinada, M., "False friends are worse than bitter enemies : "Altruistic"punishment of in-group members", Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(6), pp.379~393 (2004)
  67. Smetana, J. G., "Social-cognitive development : Domain distinctions and coordinations", Developmental Review, 3(2), pp.131~147 (1983)
  68. Smetana, J. G., "Morality in context: Abstractions, ambiguities and applications" (1995)
  69. Song, M. J., "Korean children's conceptions of moral and conventional transgressions", Developmental psychology, 23(4), pp.577~582 (1987)
  70. Stich, S., "On the morality of harm : A response to Sousa, Holbrook and Piazza", Cognition, 113(1), pp.93~97 (2009)
  71. Tisak, M., "Domains of social reasoning and beyond", Annals of child development, 11(1), pp.95~130 (1995)
  72. Tisak, M. S., "Variation in seriousness of transgressions and children's moral and conventional concepts", Developmental Psychology, 24(3), pp.352~357 (1988)
  73. Tomasello, M., "Why we cooperate" (2009), MIT Press
  74. Tomasello, M., "Origins of human cooperation and morality", Annual review of psychology, 64, pp.231~255 (2013)
  75. Trope, Y., "Construal-level theory of psychological distance", Psychological review, 117(2), pp.440~463 (2010)
  76. Turiel, E., "The development of social knowledge : Morality and convention" (1983), Cambridge University Press
  77. Turiel, E., "The development of children’s orientations toward moral, social, and personal orders : More than a sequence in development", Human development, 51(1), pp.21~39 (2008)
  78. Turiel, E., "The Handbook of Life-Span Development" (2010)
  79. Ugazio, G., "The role of emotions for moral judgments depends on the type of emotion and moral scenario", Emotion, 12(3), pp.579~590 (2012)
  80. Wheatley, T., "Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe", Psychological science, 16(10), pp.780~784 (2005)
  81. Wilson Edward, O., "Sociobiology: the new synthesis", pp.8~ (1975), The Belknap Pr. of Harvard Univ. Pr

관련 논문AI추천

도덕판단발달의 문화적 보편성: 영역구분모형의 가능성과 한계한국심리학회 · 한국심리학회지:일반1992 · 제11권 제1호도덕심리학의 흐름 및 쟁점과 도덕과교육의 과제이정렬, 정창우한국윤리학회 · 倫理硏究2012 · 제1권 제87호도덕 판단에서 정서의 역할추병완한국윤리학회 · 倫理硏究2022 · 제1권 제138호도덕적 정체성 이론은 탈 콜버그주의인가?손경원한국철학사연구회 · 한국철학논집2011 · 제32호초등학생들의 사회인습 및 도덕성 발달 평가 도구 개발이인재한국윤리학회 · 倫理硏究2005 · 제1권 제59호도덕발달에서 문화의 영향과 도덕교육의 방법송선영한국윤리학회 · 倫理硏究2017 · 제1권 제114호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (3건)

동료평가의 현황과 전망박정애, 박주용pp. 85-104죽은 사람의 마음 이론: 죽은 사람의 마음은 시공간을 초월하는가?김의선, 김성호pp. 105-120무용 숙련성에 따른 동작결과예측 능력의 차이: 삐루엣 앙 디올 동작을 중심으로이우종, 유제광, 한시완, 양종현pp. 121-135
원문 보기