In the 60s, (when I started college as a psych major), there was a lot of interest by psychologists in "pro-social" behavior and this led to questions about altruistic behavior. We commit most of our pro-social acts because we are motivated by self-interest, but sometimes we act altruistically and psychologists did hundreds of studies trying to figure out WHY. Where did altrusim come from? Why does it sometimes override self-interest? I took a graduate course in Piagetian development, most of which I've forgotten, if I ever learned it, but I remember that most of the studies arrived at theories of different stages that progressed from a naive, simplistic realism-- rules, avoidance of punishment-- to a belief and acceptance of universal principles based on fairness and personal conscience
SHortened version was- that people first accept basic rules and act out of fear, and expand to a "what'll it get me" approach, then on to group expectations and belonging (which seems to correspond to your definition of morality) to a sense of responsibility and a realization of others' interests, and finally to some acceptance of a universal moral code, a sense of fairness that can see beyond self(like your Ethics?).
I'm not sure too many people get all the way to the end.
And I suppose sociopaths get stuck in stage one.
Anyway- I guess I was thinking that the reason you can't really draw a clean separation between the two (altruistic vs. selfish behavior) is becuase of the evolving and progressing aspect of moral development that makes motivation difficult to analyze.
I feel like this should have been handwritten in a bluebook.
Funny, it's a whole lot more interesting now than it was then. |
