The Construction of Morality

“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” — Immanuel Kant
Morality vs. Ethics
In this paper we are looking at a strand of human decision making which deals with the categorization of actions and thoughts into ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Ethics and Morality in that sense give us the language to understand what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’. While philosophers over the centuries have used these terms interchangeably, we will make a very clear distinction between the two for the purposes of this paper.
Ethics refers to rules, both formal and informal, set up by an external agency which decides for a large group of people the appropriate code of conduct. These rules are often exhaustive in nature and answer not only large philosophical questions but also small mundane queries, either explicitly or through interpretation by an authority figure. The purpose of ethics is to build a cohesive society where the element of chance and unforeseen incidents is vastly reduced. (Resnik)
Morality on the other hand is a person’s own belief system about the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. It is the inner faculty of an individual which directs them to choose one decision over the other based on their understanding of what is the right thing to do. Quite like reason, morality enables an individual to decide for him/herself the action that is appropriate and helps them navigate the world. (Ariely)
It is by no means necessary for morality and ethics to align with each other on every single decision. An example of such a cleavage would be the granting of voting rights to women all over the world. While personal belief systems had begun to change with the advent of feminist thought, official systems and power structures took a significantly long time to align themselves with this new idea. What was the right thing to do officially, and what the individual believed was the right thing, were at odds for several decades. In an incident like this, a person is dealt a dilemma of doing the right thing for themselves as opposed to doing the thing which society deems correct. Due to the imbalance of power, the authority figure has a greater probability of prevailing in the short term. However, once a critical mass of people is reached who believe in the contrary, the ethical framework of society does align itself with the changing personal belief system. Ethics therefore can be looked at as the aggregation of morality. We will elaborate on this idea later in the paper once we have established the concept of local reality.
Local Reality and the Construction of Reason
Let us examine how an individual experiences the world. When a child is born, it is exposed to direct sensorial data- the color of an apple, the roundness of a ball, the hardness of surfaces, language, and is expected to also navigate a fairly complex incentive/punishment systems which their parents control, for instance quietness, smiling, and giggles are rewarded while crying, pooping, and scratching are punished. Since it is not easy to generalize the kind of incentive/punishment structure different parents follow and the kind of environment a child grows in, it is fairly logical to conclude that each child is exposed to certain common stimuli like physical roundness/hardness/roughness of the world, and certain unique stimuli like dialects and the kind of other power structures they are exposed to (patriarchy, caste, capitalism etc.)
So, children grow up forming a repository of patterns of the physical and non-physical stimuli that they are exposed to, and learn to navigate their world using this knowledge. It is important to point out that a primary method through which human babies learn is through imitation, therefore, the role of local reality becomes even more important in the formation of their personalities and their ability to think. (Mcelroy)
I hypothesize that reason, which is often defined as the ability of the human mind to think, understand, and form judgments logically towards stimuli, is nothing but this repository of patterns that the human brain has recorded from the experiences it has had in its local reality. In this sense I differ from the rationalists in their claim of an innate human reason and choose to side with the empiricists in their reliance on sensorial data for the formation of ‘what is logical’. (Markie)
This hypothesis could be a sound explanation of why philosophers/scientists of different eras have had different answers and views about the same questions and phenomenon. We cannot detach a philosopher from his/her historical context because their thinking is shaped not only by traditional thought but also by the material conditions prevailing at that time. (Gaarder 301–302) So rationality and reason in that sense becomes a fluid concept which are shaped by prevailing thoughts, the material conditions of the society it is constructed in, and subjective individual experiences that the individual goes through. That is why something like slavery, which was a perfectly logical concept of its time, is no longer tolerated today. (Kain)

I should make it clear that by claiming that reason is dependent on subjective individual experiences and the conditions of its time, I do not mean to imply that truth and reality are subjective. What I mean to say is that reason is not a pre-installed software that our brains are born with, it is the ability of the human brain to record patterns from the data it is exposed to, and therefore needs more data to become smarter and more efficient.
This view of reason has a base collective aggregate which is shared by most people which has been formed through people’s exposure to the same kind of stimuli and on top of that is a layer which is open to change based on subjective unique experiences. This base aggregate is perhaps the ‘common sense’ that Socrates was talking about (Russo). This leaves an element of subjectivity in addition to a fair amount of objectivity (which is only a result of the aggregation of universal experiences) in our understanding of the world. If all reason was devoid of subjectivity, we would have one solid block of objectivity which we could use to reach the truth, human beings therefore, would have, through sheer time and effort achieved nirvana and we would had no dispute or debate on any topic. It is this subjectivity, this flexibility for new data and stimuli, which helps us adapt and reach closer to understanding our world. Therefore, reason is not a static tool given to us by the gods to slice the world open, it is a constantly growing understanding of the mechanics of the reality which changes and adapts to new data.
The link between reason and morality — evolution and Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant postulated the existence of four kinds of human intuitions which helped the human brain perceive reality. He had claimed that the human brain only perceives reality in terms of i) space and ii) time, and that it has the tendency to assign iii) causality to the phenomenon that it observes around it, but what is most relevant to our discussion is the human intuition which categorizes actions in to iv) good and bad. Kant referred to this intuition as the Universal Moral Law. (Gaarder 276–278)
This was the crucial juncture in history where Kant brought reason and morality together. While he did not claim to completely define a code with which humans must live, he certainly developed a framework for such a code to take shape. Philosophers before Kant, like Hume, had believed that morality and the categorization of decisions into right and wrong was only a function of sentiment, and this is where Kant separated himself from traditional thought and argued that morality was based on reason alone, and once we understood this, we would see that acting morally is the same as acting rationally. He claimed that reason was the root of moral categorization, and that it was reason alone which helped us make the right decision. With this, he permanently joined morality and reason together and we will continue with this association for our discussion in this paper. (Lacewing)
Cultural Anthropologist Christopher Boehm has argued that this human intuition began to surface along with the origin of the human conscience about a quarter of a million years ago as an evolutionary tool to help humans work with each other in ‘big game hunting’. He claims that when groups began hunting larger animals, it was in the interest of the alpha male to limit his alpha tendencies as groups tended to get rid of the figure of authority in order to acquire a more equitable distribution of meat. This, he believes was the period in human history where our brains began to evolve and started categorizing decisions as good or bad (Boehm).
This is where we will look to modern day philosopher Sam Harris for another causal link of how this categorization takes place and will add to Kant’s theory. Harris claims that the primary utility of morality is to enhance the well-being of the community and of the larger society, and that moral decisions are grounded in how conscious beings will react to those decisions. While he did not explicitly state the words, his theory borrows heavily from ‘Theory of mind’, the ability of the human brain to ascribe mental states to another individual to help predict actions. Harris claims that humans do not form moral judgments about rocks or inanimate objects, and value human life over animal or plant life precisely because of the existence of consciousness (Harris)
The causal relationship between theory of mind and a moral framework can be seen in the universality of certain axioms which seem to be the guiding principles for a moral code in most cultures (Marraffa).
Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law -Immanuel Kant
All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. -Matthew 7:1 (Christianity)
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. -Udana-Varga 5,1 (Buddhism)
This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. -Mahabharata 5,1517 (Hinduism)
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. — Sunnah (Islam)
It is evident from these examples that even though people from these cultures take vastly different moral decisions, there is a certain common-ness in the foundations on which these ethical frameworks are built, a ‘common sense’ so to speak. This evidence is clearly pointing toward the utility of morality that Harris has spoken about, that at the root of all decisions is the need for the human species to co-exist with each other in a way which maximizes our well-being.
Ethics: An aggregation of morality
By now we have looked at the role of local reality in the construction of reason, and we have established that reason and morality are inextricably related. Therefore, through transitive logic (a=b and b=c, therefore a=c), we arrive at the conclusion that local reality has part to play in the construction of human morality. Our direct sensorial experiences from our local reality have a role to play in how we categorize actions as good or bad.
Quite like reason, it has a certain aggregate which is uniform across a culture, and a part which depends on the subjective experience of an individual. I am hypothesizing that it is this aggregate which becomes the ethical framework of a society.
To demonstrate this, let us run a thought experiment — imagine a hypothetical society of 4 individuals on an island. All of these 4 individuals have a common language to interact with each other, and the ability to exercise the theory of mind. Over a large period of time they have a certain set of common experiences (X) and a certain set of subjective experiences (a,b,c,d) which leads to the formation of moralities in which certain ideas are universally accepted while others are disagreed upon.
Therefore, when the time comes to induct new citizens onto their island, they decide that it is more efficient for their society as a whole if the new citizens were told these universally accepted ideas so that they can smoothly transition into a cohesive system. This is done through the prevailing religion on the island, island law, and island policy. Refer to Fig 2 for a detailed visual description of how this process occurs.
This diagram shows the way in which there is a feedback loop between individual moralities of people and the ethical framework that their society decides to operate on. I concede that this particular thought experiment is far too simplistic as it does not speak of existing power structures and who decides for the society what aspects from this highest common denominator to take for designing the ethical framework.

While this may be true, I will argue that this process of a feedback loop will still hold and history is evidence that ethical beliefs of a society/culture do change with time and this change occurs when there is a large movement against a conventionally held belief.
To summarize, individuals in a particular setting have a set of common experiences and a set of subjective experiences in their local reality, this leads to all of them developing a reason/morality which differs from each other if you look at them in totality, but which does have a highest common denominator which is the same for all these individuals. It is this highest common denominator of their moralities that becomes the basis of the ethical framework of a society which is codified and enacted through religion, law, policy, and other official instruments. As this highest common denominator is shared with the majority of the people in the area, it begins to take the guise of truth and new citizens/individuals are policed through these ethical instruments to behave in a certain way.
This continues till the subjective experiences of a critical mass of people begin to point in another direction which is different from the ethical framework that society has adopted. Organically, the reason and morality of people evolves and begins to differ from the ethical framework that the society has adopted. Over time, the ethical framework changes and adapts itself to this new way of thinking.
In this way local reality, reason, morality, and the ethical framework of a society are linked in what appears to be a feedback loop which moves closer towards an ideal way of living and adapts to the conditions of the time through an iterative cyclical process.

Categorical imperative Vs. Consequential Morality
Now that we have outlined what morality is, why is exists, and how it is constructed, we will dive slightly into how it works. Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of classifications within moral thinking. While it has been established that humans categorize decisions into good and bad, we have ignored an important temporal aspect of this classification. It is of value to investigate when and how we ascribe qualities of right-ness and wrong-ness to our decisions.
There are mainly two schools of thought, which speak about the temporality of this quality association, Kant’s categorical imperative and Bentham’s utilitarianism. If we look at any decision that humans take, it has two crucial parts to it — the action and the consequence.
Kant was of the opinion that a decision is moral if and only if the action and intent in itself is good regardless of what the consequence is. He said that certain actions are categorically good while others are categorically bad and even if they lead to a net favorable result, it is the quality of the actions in itself which determines the morality of a person. (Paton)
Jeremy Bentham on the other hand was the father of utilitarianism, a school of thought that seeks to maximize utility and values happiness over virtue. He was a champion of what we call consequential morality, a morality that looked at the end result of an action to decide whether a decision was good or bad. It was a fundamental principle of utilitarianism to look at the end net utility/happiness that can be derived from a decision to classify it as good or bad. An individual who belongs to this school of thought will therefore be okay with committing a sin, if it leads to a greater net utility/happiness, while someone who operates on categorical morality will walk away from any action which he/she considers immoral. (Mill)
The purpose of describing these two streams within moral decision making was to set the foundation for the study that I undertook to see how different individuals made choices for the same moral problem.

A social Experiment
Following the tradition of the Socratic Method and infusing it with data backed science, I conducted a series of interviews with people to try and understand their thought process while making moral decisions. The subjects were therefore made to answer a series of trolley problems, all of which had two kinds of answers, one which operated on Kant’s categorical imperative, and another which was utilitarian in nature.
The intent of such a study was to see if there was a pattern that emerged in how people made these moral choices, and to test some of the claims that a few thinkers we have spoken about have made.
Method: A series of questions from Michael Sandel’s course on Justice at Harvard University were compiled which posed a moral problem in front of the subject. These moral decisions came in the form of a trolley problem where the subject was expected to choose what they valued more, the categorical nature of the action or the kind of result that it yielded. A subject’s answer was therefore categorized into a categorical moral decision or a utilitarian/consequential moral decision. The interviews were conducted in a shoes-off no judgment environment and the subjects were informed in advance of the intent of the study but were not given the theoretical grounding to distinguish the choices given to them as categorical or consequential. All of their answers to the given series of questions were then compiled and then analyzed to see if a pattern emerged. Several control variables like gender, religion practiced while growing up, material prosperity (class), were also studied to see if a co-relation could be found.
Result: From our interviews a few patterns did emerge but the small size of our control group (16) does not allow us to draw conclusive insights. However, for the discussion of this paper, the data still does point toward certain breakaways from conventional wisdom which could be of use. The following were the findings of my study. 1) 100% of the subjects showed no moral consideration for an inanimate object while 2) 93% of the subjects valued human life over an animal’s life. 3) Over all, there was a 50–50 split between categorical and consequential decisions. 4) However, males tended to make more categorical moral decisions (Over 60% of the times), 5) While Females preferred to make utilitarian moral choices (Over 60% of the times). 6) People who said they were financially well off growing up chose utilitarianism over categorical morality (0ver 77% of the times), 7) While people who said that their family was not doing so well financially chose categorical morality over utilitarianism even though the divide was not huge (57%)
Conclusion: The findings of this study seem to be conforming to Boehm’s and Harris’s assertion that morality is primarily a tool for conscious beings to take decisions which affect other conscious beings. So our assessment of Harris’s idea, that the theory of mind has a large part to play in morality does hold true from this data. We find a slight deviation in moral decisions regarding animals, but it is possible that anthropomorphization had something to do with that.
The larger point that this data is pointing us toward is that different individuals operate on vastly different moralities and that peoples material conditions, their upbringing, and their community do seem to affect their moral framework. Therefore, our assertion that local reality influences reason and in turn morality is proven to some extent.
Theory at a glance

Future Scope of Study
As mentioned already, the control group in our study was far too small and homogenous for any solid conclusive insights to emerge. In addition to this, the time over which their behavior was studied was far too limited. For a conclusive test of this comprehensive theory of morality, a large scale study of human behavior will need to be undertaken where subjects and their decision making will be studied over the course of their lives in relation to the kind of environments that they are exposed to and the kind of upbringing that they have. I speculate that at least a 20 year study will have to be conducted in vastly different parts of the world which differ in not just the prevailing thought but also in the material conditions in which our subjects will exist. At a 20 year check point, we will reassess the need to continue studying out subjects based on the trends that emerge in this period.
However, it is important that if the data shows unfavorable results which conclusively disprove any philosophical idea that we have spoken about, then we must completely abandon said idea.
Our reason will adapt to new data.