Rediscovering the Moral: The ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Sociology of Morality in the Context of the Behavioural Sciences

Abstract

This article examines the relationships between the sociology of morality and behavioural sciences. It is argued that, although the classical sociological tradition provides valuable theoretical resources for understanding moral phenomena, the prevalence of behavioural sciences in the field is problematic for the ‘new’ sociology of morality, particularly given a wider naturalist movement represented by some modern social theorists. In the context of the current discussion about the future of the sociology of morality, especially the question of how it should react to the dominating biological and psychological approaches, I propose two possible perspectives for the field’s ongoing development.

Opening Constructive Dialogues Between Business Ethics Research and the Sociology of Morality: Introduction to the Thematic Symposium

“…The primary reservation that sociologists had with how psychologists and cognitive scientists approached the study was related to ontological assumptions about human nature, for the former tend to believe that the universalist perspectives that appear to undergird the latter’s perspectives do not pay sufficient attention to some important aspects of moral phenomena, associated with their social, cultural, historical, and contextual character (e.g. Abend 2011 ; Bykov 2019 ; Hitlin and Vaisey 2013 ; McCaffree 2019 ).…”

“…As we discussed earlier, the resurgence of research in the sociology of morality has been in part a reaction to the acceleration of work on morality in disciplines of psychology and philosophy (Bykov 2019 ). To highlight the unique contribution of sociology, researchers have been paying special attention to the role of context (Abend 2013 , 2014 ; Shadnam 2015 ).…”

“…the principle of justice; see Rawls 1971 ; and its applications in business ethics, see Prasad 2018 ), sociologists consider moral phenomena in relation to their social context, relying on both individualistic and holistic explanations, as well as their integration (Powell 2010 ). The sociological perspective is, usually more relativistic, as it tends to emphasize different visions of morality that illuminate its complex nature, suggesting that moral norms and worldviews are often a function of social and historical context (Bykov 2019 ; Hitlin and Vaisey 2013 ). A more direct and substantive dialogue on the relations between different normative systems in shaping organizational behavior would both advance the conceptual understanding of normativity and clarify the multiple mechanisms of moral regulations in organizations, especially those associated with modern cultural transformations and value change.…”

Assessing the Academic integrity among University Students in Pakistan

“…This study is theoretically organized by the sociology of morality and norm circles theory. Sociology of morality considers few assumptions, one, that morality despite biological explanations, has social complexity and cultural diversity (Bykov, 2018), Two, morality has components that are external to one's body (Wong, 2006), and three morality is not only about norms and values (Hitlin & Vaisey, 2013). Sociology of morality includes narratives, identities, institutions, symbolic boundaries, and cognitive schemas, (Hitlin & Vaisey, 2013).…”

Sociological contributions for researching morality and cultivating states of moral character

“…A few academic disciplines regularly conduct research on morality, where morality is investigated in characteristic ways for those disciplines. The behavioral sciences for example are concerned with cognitive processes and the brain, often in response to moral stimuli (Abend, 2012;Bykov, 2018;Mogilski, 2016). This engages psychologists, neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists in studies of universally shared (and sometimes culturally distinct) moral functioning, often thought to have developed as a consequence of communal living and processes of natural selection.…”