Case Study
Sarah is an experienced naturopath and massage therapist running her own business in a rural setting in Australia . With recent economic downturns , and the Covid-19 pandemic strongly affecting her community , she has found that her business is booming , so much so that she is having trouble finding time for all the people looking for massage and other CM therapies to reduce stress and stay healthy . She is tempted to take on more clients but to do so she would have to reduce consult and massage times by up to 25 %. Intuitively , this makes sense to her as she can then offer at least some support to those in need , which seems more valuable that offering fewer people better treatment . The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few , she ponders , and her gut feeling , which she has always strongly trusted , is telling her that this is the best path to take .
Sarah is clearly not a rigid intuitionist , as her thinking also considers a pivotal reason . But her intuition is what decides the course she will take , in this instance at least , so we can consider her to be on that end – the intuitional - of the decision-making spectrum . How are we to think of this position ? Is it ethical , or wrongheaded ?
Intuition
An influential model of intuitive moral thinking is Haidt ’ s 2 framework for understanding moral psychology : the social intuitionist model ( SIM ). The SIM consists of a set of causal links connecting three psychological processes : intuition , judgment , and reasoning ; for our purposes we need only consider two such links . The ‘‘ intuitive judgment ’’ link states that one ’ s judgments are driven primarily by one ’ s intuitions , while the ‘‘ posthoc reasoning ’’ link posits that one ’ s reasoning is driven primarily by one ’ s judgment , rather than the other way around . In this last link , we see that Haidt is claiming that our intuition informs our judgments , which in turn inform our reasoning , contrary to most traditional rationalist models .
Using this approach , we can see that Sarah is indeed following both links . She has used her intuition to drive her judgement of best action , and her intuition and judgment have informed her of a reason that can be used post hoc in defense of that judgement .
This second point can be considered a little more closely . The principle that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few is indeed a cornerstone of Utilitarian / Consequentialist moral reasoning . But it demands close attention to the consequences that will follow any such decision . This consideration of consequences must take place before the decision is made , and it must be done rigorously . Has Sarah critically examined the possible consequences , both positive and negative and both short- and long-term , that her decision will have on her clients , herself and her practice ? And these consequences are of all kinds : health-wise , emotional , financial , moral and ethical , and legal . And of course , even if she has conducted this examination , it is quite possible that her determination of what will count as a good or bad outcome will itself be governed by her intuition .
It would be interesting perhaps at this point to ask yourself if , when you first read the case study above , your reaction to its ‘ rightness ’ or ‘ wrongness ’ was immediate and intuitive , from the ‘ heart ’. Intuitive thinking is often spontaneous and precedes critical thinking , and as such can be revelatory of our usual way of thinking about such matters .
In addition , the ‘ social ’ in the Haidt model refers to how one individual can influence the moral judgements of another . 3 According to SIM , this must be done by an appeal to the other ’ s feelings , not their reason . To change the ‘ head ’ you first have to change the ‘ heart ’.
Moral Reasoning
In contrast to Haidt ’ s SIM approach to moral decision-making , we can use Greene et al ’ s 4 dual-process model . According to Greene , deontological moral judgments , judgments that are naturally regarded as reflecting concerns for rights and duties , are driven primarily by intuitive emotional responses . At the same time , Greene argues that utilitarian ⁄ consequentialist judgments , judgments aimed at promoting the greater good , are supported by controlled cognitive processes that look more like moral reasoning . We can see this in the case study , where Sarah invokes the utilitarian idea of the greatest good for the greatest number . Greene would say , in opposition to Haidt , that Sarah is showing a clear sign of moral reasoning , considering the consequences of both choices and using rational thinking to make an informed decision .
For our purpose here , there are two critical differences between Haidt ’ s SIM and Greene ’ s dual-process model . First , while the SIM posits that reasoned judgment within an individual is ‘‘ rare , occurring primarily in cases in which the intuition is weak and processing capacity is high .’’ 5 Greene et al .’ s dual-process model allows that moral reasoning — especially utilitarian ⁄ consequentialist reasoning — may be a ubiquitous feature of moral commonsense .
Second , according to the SIM , social influence on moral judgment only occurs when one person succeeds in modifying another ’ s intuition . In other words , the SIM does not allow one person ’ s moral reasoning to influence another ’ s moral judgment directly , without first modifying their intuition . If the SIM is correct , then attempting to influence others through their ability to reason , aiming messages at the ‘‘ head ’’ rather than the ‘‘ heart ,’’ is an exercise in futility . 6
According to the SIM , it is impossible , for example , for me to change Sarah ’ s mind without first changing the way she
JATMS | Autumn 2022 | 23