Is Moralization on the Upswing?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


JZ,

You raise some questions about what "counts" as moral behavior in your last post, which got me thinking about a related question that changes the conversation a bit: What counts as a moral issue? I ask this because in the past few months, I have read and heard arguments suggesting that watching Django Unchained, listening to Chief Keef, and even watching professional football constitute (im)moral actions. These are practices that we could not imagine existing a couple centuries ago, much less could we assess their moral nature. This question is also top of mind because I recently re-read Steven Pinker's, "The Moral Instinct," which I assigned to the class I am teaching on values and ethics. In this article, Pinker suggests that whereas some practices have only become moralized in recent history (as I suggest above) other practices such as divorce and marijuana use have become amoralized in recent history. So which force is increasing more rapidly, moralization or amoralization?

Although the question, "Is Nothing Sacred Anymore?" has been repeatedly asked for decades suggesting a continual decline of moralization, the examples above give me the slightest hunch that moralization has done nothing but increase. I have virtually no empirical evidence to back me up except for the increased reach and scope of the American legal system, and in fact Michael J. Sandel's recent treatise on how marketization has corrupted once-sacred commodities, suggests the opposite pattern. Nonetheless, I am inclined to think that any societal production be it a sport, a genre of music, or a film can become moralized and therefore moralization can only increase.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


As I know of no definitive empirical answers as to whether moralization is on the rise, I have begun to investigate it myself with colleagues. Our only finding of note so far is that people who take a highly moral stance on a particular issue and people who take a highly amoral stance on the issue behave remarkably similar in their conviction. Perhaps that is why this question is so difficult to tease apart. I'm curious what your take is on whether moralization is increasing or decreasing or if you know of any work that is particularly relevant to the topic.

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Adam Waytz is an Assistant Professor of Management and Organizations at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. His research uses methods from social psychology and cognitive neuroscience to study the causes and consequences of perceiving mental states in other agents and to investigate processes related to social connection, meaning-making, morality and ethics. Professor Waytz's research has been published in leading journals such as Psychological Science, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Psychological Review. In recognition of his work, Professor Waytz received the 2008 Theoretical Innovation Award from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Professor Waytz received his BA in Psychology from Columbia University, his PhD in social psychology from the University of Chicago, and received a National Service Research Award from the National Institute of Health to complete a post-doctoral fellowship at Harvard University.

More by Adam Waytz

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe