Religiosity, Political Orientation, and Consequentialist Moral Thinking

Abstract

Three studies demonstrated that the moral judgments of religious individuals and political conservatives are highly insensitive to consequentialist (i.e., outcome-based) considerations. In Study 1, both religiosity and political conservatism predicted a resistance toward consequentialist thinking concerning a range of transgressive acts, independent of other relevant dispositional factors (e.g., disgust sensitivity). Study 2 ruled out differences in welfare sensitivity as an explanation for these findings. In Study 3, religiosity and political conservatism predicted a commitment to judging “harmless” taboo violations morally impermissible, rather than discretionary, despite the lack of negative consequences rising from the act. Furthermore, non-consequentialist thinking style was shown to mediate the relationship religiosity/conservatism had with impermissibility judgments, while intuitive thinking style did not. These data provide further evidence for the influence of religious and political commitments in motivating divergent moral judgments, while highlighting a new dispositional factor, non-consequentialist thinking style, as a mediator of these effects.

Belief in divine moral authority: Validation of a shortened scale with implications for social attitudes and moral cognition

“…Specifically, Divine Command beliefs were central in explaining why religious believers are relatively committed to moral rules in the face of utilitarian alternatives. Consistent with Piazza and Sousa's (2013) rationale, it would seem that religious individuals are often ruleoriented because they view moral rules as grounded in God's supreme moral authority.…”

“…However, among contemporary Christian samples, a belief in divine moral authority appears to BELIEF IN DIVINE MORAL AUTHORITY 7 undergird a deontological approach to morality via commitments to follow divine ordinances, which generally take the form of moral rules (Piazza, 2012;Piazza & Landy, 2013;Piazza & Sousa, 2013). Research by Piazza and colleagues has found that people who endorse DCT tend to think that moral rules should be followed even when breaking them would help promote a greater good.…”

“…For example, the stronger one identifies as religious, the more likely one expresses the values of maintaining ingroup loyalties, paying deference to authority, and adhering to puritanical notions of sexual purity and decency (Piazza & Landy, 2013). Among Western samples, the more a person BELIEF IN DIVINE MORAL AUTHORITY 5 identifies with their religion, the less willing they are to engage in utilitarian forms of moral reasoning and argumentation (Antonenko Young, Willer & Keltner, 2013;Piazza, 2012;Piazza & Sousa, 2013). In addition, among samples of Israelis and Palestinians participation in organized religion increased support for terrorist activities (Ginges, Hansen, & Norenzayan, 2009).…”

“…Furthermore, it is through God's revelation ("scripture") that God's laws for living a moral life are conveyed. Therefore, for devout believers, living a moral life requires knowledge of and adherence to God's moral laws.DCT is not identical with a deontological approach to morality (indeed, the philosopher Immanuel Kant developed a secular deontological ethical theory based on rational principles).However, among contemporary Christian samples, a belief in divine moral authority appears to BELIEF IN DIVINE MORAL AUTHORITY 7 undergird a deontological approach to morality via commitments to follow divine ordinances, which generally take the form of moral rules (Piazza, 2012;Piazza & Landy, 2013;Piazza & Sousa, 2013). Research by Piazza and colleagues has found that people who endorse DCT tend to think that moral rules should be followed even when breaking them would help promote a greater good.…”

Citizenship and morality

“…I thought that endorsement of open-mindedness would be seen as socially desirable. Some insight about one source of the low scores came from the work of Jared Piazza ([30] [31] [32]), who found that consequentialist and utilitarian judgments were negatively correlated not only with political conservatism and religiosity but, especially, with a belief in "divine command theory," the claim that people are incapable of understanding or questioning God's moral pronouncements and should not try to do so. Baron et al [29] found that a measure of belief in this theory was strongly negatively correlated with the self-report AOT scale and with utilitarian moral judgment.…”