Moral reasoning
Michael Schliefer of UQAM and I developed a psychological theory of reasoning about harm-doing that was inspired by conceptual analyses in jurisprudence and moral philosophy. For a case in which a person may have done something to harm someone else, sequential decisions focus on whether the agent is a cause of the harm, is morally responsible for the harm, is worthy of blame, and how much punishment should be administered. Because each of these decisions uses information on previous decisions, the relations among them can be described in terms of presupposition.
In psychological studies, we identified many of the factors that influence judgments of causation, responsibility, blame, and punishment. It was shown that much of the conceptual structure necessary for making such judgments is well within the grasp of children as young as five years.
The resulting theory was formalized as a rule system that was found capable of matching legal judgments (corresponding to blame) over the last five centuries of English and American law, as well as legalistic decisions made in a variety of traditional cultures. The theory was featured in the Annual Reviews of Psychology as a major information-processing alternative to the justification-based approach of Kohlberg and others.
In psychological studies, we identified many of the factors that influence judgments of causation, responsibility, blame, and punishment. It was shown that much of the conceptual structure necessary for making such judgments is well within the grasp of children as young as five years.
The resulting theory was formalized as a rule system that was found capable of matching legal judgments (corresponding to blame) over the last five centuries of English and American law, as well as legalistic decisions made in a variety of traditional cultures. The theory was featured in the Annual Reviews of Psychology as a major information-processing alternative to the justification-based approach of Kohlberg and others.
- Darley, J. M., & Shultz, T. R. (1990). Moral rules: Their content and acquisition. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 41, 525-556.
- Fincham, F. D., & Shultz, T. R. (1981). Intervening causation and the mitigation of responsibility for harm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 113-120.
- Schleifer, M., Shultz, T. R., & Lefebvre-Pinard, M. (1983). Children's judgements of causality, responsibility and punishment in cases of harm due to omission. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 87-97.
- Shultz, T. R., & Darley, J. M. (1991). An information-processing model of retributive moral judgments based on "legal reasoning." In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 2, pp. 247-278). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
- Shultz, T. R., & Wright, K. (1985). Concepts of negligence and intention in the assignment of moral responsibility. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 17, 97-108.
- Shultz, T. R., Schleifer, M., & Altman, I. (1981). Judgments of causation, responsibility, and punishment in cases of harm-doing. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 13, 238-253.
- Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C., & Schleifer, M. (1987). Assigning vicarious responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 377-380.
- Shultz, T. R., Wright, K., & Schleifer, M. (1986). Assignment of moral responsibility and punishment. Child Development, 57, 177-184.
