Abstract
Morality – the subjective sense that humans discern between right and wrong – plays a ubiquitous role in everyday life. Deontological reasoning conceptualizes moral decision-making as rigid, such that many moral choices are forbidden or required. Not surprisingly, the language used in measures of deontological reasoning tends to be rigid, including phrases such as “always” and “never.” Two studies (N = 553) drawn from two different populations used commonly used measures of moral reasoning and measures of morality to examine the link between individual differences in deontological reasoning and language on the endorsement of moral foundations. Participants low on deontological reasoning generally showed less endorsement for moral principles when extreme language was used in the measures (relative to less extreme language).
Highlights
Much like many social phenomena, language is the primary mechanism through which moral decisions are conceptualized and conveyed to others
The use of absolute language led to generally less agreement on the total score of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ), but only for participants low in deontological reasoning
Why would participants low in deontological reasoning be more sensitive to the language effect than participants who are high in deontological reasoning but only for the individualizing foundations? One possibility is that the language effect was not as strong for the Binding foundations as it was for the Individualizing foundations
Summary
Much like many social phenomena, language is the primary mechanism through which moral decisions are conceptualized and conveyed to others. Stories in many cultures are used to teach what is morally correct (Bible, Chinese proverbs, etc.). It is no surprise, that language is intertwined with moral reasoning and is part of an individual’s moral architecture (Costa et al, 2014). Philosophers have outlined two general reasoning styles that lead to different responses to moral decisions. A deontological mindset is one where a “hardline” approach is implemented, such that there is no moral flexibility (e.g., under no conditions is killing someone acceptable; (Kant, 1785/1959). A consequentialist mindset acknowledges that, when harm benefits the greater good, it is acceptable to engage in a seemingly immoral action (Mill, 1861)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
