Culture on Moral Reasoning 1

Running Head: CULTURE ON MORAL REASONING

The Influence of Culture on Moral Reasoning

Katherine Elise Weber
Glen Allen High School

Culture on Moral Reasoning 2

Introduction
The most rudimentary conception of morality is the contrast between a perceptible right
and wrong. Despite certain connotations associated with the word, the morality of individuals,
albeit a nearly unquantifiable concept, is that which orchestrates war and altruism, violence and
kindness, dishonesty and honesty, and nearly every perceived good or bad choice or idea
witnessed by humanity. Yet the looming question remains, is morality something that is inborn?
Are certain individuals predisposed for violent tendencies? Or do individuals decide what is right
and wrong through the lens of cultural norms, values, religions? Especially in an increasingly
globalized society, it is crucial that finally a meaningful understanding of morality and how it
may be shaped is comprehensively composed. All of such reflections beg the question, is an
individuals morality influenced more strongly by biological characteristics or by culture?
The moral compass of humanity is not something to be passed over as an inevitably
unchangeable staple of societal trend. Despite natural tendencies of morality in
social/cultural settings, research reveals a largely individual and potentially biological
component to moral decision-making. Pervasive cultural norms likewise bear a heavy
influence on moral decision-making. However despite cross-cultural differences in moral
capacities, all individuals are born with a universal breed of morality th at becomes shaped
by cultural factors such as religion and ideology.

Brains, Babies, and Biology

We are naturally moral beings, but our environments can enhance or, sadly, degrade
this innate moral sense.
-Paul Bloom

Culture on Moral Reasoning 3

While it may seem at first glance that culture plays a predominant role in the way in which
individuals view the world and consequently how individuals behave, scholars reflect on how
science may account for moral judgments. According to a study conducted by Joshua Green of
Harvard University that distinguished between types of moral dilemmas (moral personal like
throwing somewhat out of a lifeboat for the sake of others and moral impersonal like taking
the money found from a lost wallet), specific brain structures such as the medial prefrontal
cortex, posterior cingulate, and angular gyrus play a central role in the emotional processes that
influence moral decision-making (Landua, 2014). Further research demonstrates differences
between a psychopath's brain structure and a non-psychopath's brain structure when pressed to
decide in a moral dilemma (Landau, 2014). In the studies, functional magnetic resonance
imaging scans revealed that there was less activation of the medial frontal and posterior cingulate
cortices in psychopaths brains when responding to moral dilemmas and likewise found
impairment in the connections between the brain regions thought to be involved in morality
among the psychopaths studied (Landau, 2014). With the observation that psychopaths lack the
same level of empathy as non-psychopaths, that these emotional/moral personal centers in the
brain experience less activation is logical in the context of the study. Overall, these findings
legitimized a potential link between brain structure and moral reasoning, as the researchers
consistently found connections between specific brain regions and moral decision-making. Of
course, there are far fewer psychopaths than non-psychopaths in society, however it would not be
incendiary to assume that individuals naturally vary in their levels of empathy, a factor linked to
brain structure and therefore respective moral reasoning.
Ties between moral decision-making and parts of the human brain have been supported by
further comprehensive research. According to a study published by the National Center for

Culture on Moral Reasoning 4

Biotechnology information, two types of moral dilemmas presented to test subjectsimpersonal
and personal moral dilemmas such as in the aforementioned studyelicited functional magnetic
resonance imaging scan results that reveal that when making personal moral dilemmas, such as,
for a different example, sacrificing one mans life by pushing him off of a bridge in order to save
five others, emotion-related cerebral areas were activated to a higher extent than impersonal
dilemmas (Caravita, Giardino, Lenzi, Salvaterra, Antonietti, 2012). This incongruity in brain
activation between personal and impersonal dilemmas again emphasizes the possibility of a
biological moral reasoning linked directly to the brains structure.
Researchers have likewise uncovered compelling evidence of an inborn morality among
young children. In a CBS News broadcast that questioned whether babies were born good,
research findings of Yale psychologist Karen Wynn validate that babies as young as three
months of age have already a sense of what is deemed right and wrong and that babies tend
to prefer those of good morals (Bloom, 2012). Five-month-old children, like little Wesley,
for example, were presented a puppet show displaying one puppet struggling to open a box.
A different puppet wearing a yellow shirt comes and helps to open the box. The scene
repeats, but this time around a puppy wearing blue comes and slams the box down on the
poor struggling puppet. When subsequently asked which puppet Wesley, the baby,
preferred, Wesley chose the puppet in the yellow shirt who had helped the struggling
puppet, proving that even at such a young age, he understood that one puppet had acted in
the right way and the other in the wrong (Bloom, 2012).
Further studies conducted with babies yielded even more telling results. In a different
situation, the baby had to acknowledge whether he or she preferred a snack of graham
crackers or Cheerios. Upon choosing graham crackers as the snack of choice, Nate, one of

Culture on Moral Reasoning 5

the babies tested, would choose which puppet he preferred: the grey cat, who also liked
graham crackers, or the orange cat, who liked Cheerios. As one would predict, Nate
preferred the grey cat. However, what is perhaps more compelling is Nates feelings
towards the opposing orange cat. The orange cat was depicted as struggling to open a box to
reach a toy, and then the grey cat slammed the box down. Now, when again asked which
puppet he preferred, Nate still chose the grey cat, even though from the previous study we
can infer that he understood that that action was wrong. Despite the grey cats wrong
behavior, Nate and 87% of the babies tested preferred the puppet who was more like
them, in Nates case, despite the wrong behavior the grey cat exhibited as if the orange cat
needed to be punished for simply liking Cheerios, proving that even a baby condones
unethical actions against an out-group (Bloom, 2012).
This natural us and them mentality seen even in very young children serves as a
foundation for bigotry worldwide empowered by the polarization afforded by group
dynamics. Further research done on children of older ages expressed more selfless and
altruistic tendencies given that they had experienced education and exposure to the real
world; however, as one professor noted, adversity causes us to regress to our childlike
selves (Bloom, 2012). That children are born with a kind of black-and-white universal moral
compass that fluctuates based on the experiences and education those children receive
speaks to an innate morality heavily influenced by cultural factors.
Finally, it is crucial to address the possibility of an interconnection between ones
personality and ones moral predispositions. Researchers drew relationships between three
of the Big 5 personality traits (extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience,
agreeableness, and neuroticism) and the moral identity of individuals. For example, the

Culture on Moral Reasoning 6

researchers cited that ones conscientiousness has been shown to predict honesty and
likelihood of engagement in prosocial activities, including volunteering with needy people
or organizations (McFerran, Aquino, Duffy, 2010). In fact, people high in
conscientiousness have proved to be less likely to engage in dishonesty in the workplace
(McFerran, Aquino, Duffy, 2010). Greater agreeableness was thought to be more
indicative of loyalty, and Lawrence Kohlberg believed that a higher degree of the openness
to experience trait was correlated to higher levels of moral reasoning; however low
openness to experience was potentially linked to right wing authoritarianism associated with
lower levels of moral reasoning rooted in rigidity, intolerance, andprejudice against
various out-groups (McFerran, Aquino, Duffy, 2010). If one may perceive that personality
traits are inborn qualities of varying quantity in degree, then it could be concluded that even
something as natural as ones personality traits could influence his or her moral
integrity/predispositions; yet, again, biological truths are not immune to the complexities of
cultural influence.
With the possibilities of an inborn morality in mind, the question over whether morality
is biologically and universally predetermined is debated in the context of the belief that
cultural factors, given their impact on early life experiences, control morality more strongly
than biology.

Social Animal
The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to
be good or evil.
-Hannah Arendt
While it is important to consider the very individual biological qualities of every person,
such qualities can be masked, overshadowed, or heightened when amongst other humans who

Culture on Moral Reasoning 7

either share or conflict in such qualities. In other words, the tendencies associated with social
psychology are, in many ways, studies of natural phenomena potentially outside of individual
control.
One particularly notable example of a natural predisposition that might overshadow
individual morality is a peculiar inclination of humans to obey authorityan idea so famously
studied by illustrious social psychologist Stanley Milgram. Milgrams experiments demonstrated
a seemingly inhuman capacity of ordinary humans to deliver life-threatening shocks to so-called
learners (actors) when the learners repeatedly answered questions wrong. The subjects, or
teachers, were consistently instructed that the experiment requires that that subject continue
delivering the accompanying shock, even to the point where some of the actors complained of
potentially lethal heart failure (Encina, 2004). Subjects seemed to display discomfort as they
delivered the shocks; some would laugh nervously or appear cold, hopeless, somber or
arrogant, yet despite these signs of discomfort, a startling 65% of participants delivered the
maximum voltage level (Encina, 2004). A majority of these apparently ordinary individuals
somehow were pushed to the extent of cold-blooded killers simply given the authority of a
disembodied prompter. Presumably, the tendency of humans to obey authority is somewhat
beyond the individual control of one being strictly ordered.
Milgrams studies were bolstered by the philosophical reflections of scholar Hannah
Arendt, who coined this phenomenon of obedience as the banality of evil in the context of the
post-World War II era. Adolf Eichmann was put on trial after the war, as he played a large role
in the orchestration of the Holocaust. Arendt argued that Eichmann was not a kind of natural
monster of evil as we might think but rather that he acted out of thoughtless obedience to
authority, making his evil not our common perception of evil but rather more banal

Culture on Moral Reasoning 8

(Kirsch, Galchen, 2013). Her and Milgrams theories would shed light on potentially how
seemingly ordinary German men became executioners of one of the most systematic and brutal
genocides of mankind. In this vein, it is possible that there is some inborn or at least natural
element of existence that shapes morality beyond a level of individual control.

Cross-Cultural Inconsistencies
An Englishman thinks he is moral when he is only uncomfortable.
-George Bernard Shaw

When reflecting on the possibility of a universal morality, it is crucial to understand the

contrarian perspective that reveals highly varying morals across several cultures. Pew
Research Center conducted a Global Attitudes survey that asked respondents from fo rty
different countries of their views on the moral issues of extramarital affairs, gambling,
homosexuality, abortion, premarital sex, alcohol use, divorce, and contraception use. While
consistencies can be seen across some cultures from the data, immense variation is apparent
between African and Muslim countries, who found most of such activities morally
unacceptable as compared to Westernized countries and Japan, who tended to find the
activities more acceptable (Global Views on Morality, 2013). For example, questions about
the acceptability of alcohol use yielded a spectrum of results: 85% of the individuals
surveyed of Jordan believed alcohol was morally unacceptable, while only a mere 6% of
Japanese individuals found this activity morally unacceptable (Global Views, 2013). We are
all humans of similar biological functions and modes of cognition. What could account for
this discrepancy in attitude? Mohammed Khazer al-Majali, a professor of Islamic studies at
the University of Jordan, stated that in Jordan, ifyou want to drink, it is not accepted,

Culture on Moral Reasoning 9

adding that in general, those who drink are not respected in this country (Teich , 2012).
The taboo against alcohol is propagated by Islamic society, which teaches that alcohol
consumption is a disgraceful, disrespectful act (Teich, 2012). On the other hand, in Japan,
alcohol is glorified for being an integral part of Japanese culture (Ito, 2014). In fact,
traditional celebrations in Japan are oftentimes characterized by alcohol consumption, such
as, for example, Shinto ceremonies like a newborns first visit to a shrine or a wedding (Ito,
2014). In this respect, that alcohol is particularly valued and accepted by Japanese tradition
and popular culture would likewise increase the likelihood of individuals perceiving alcohol
consumption as morally acceptable. However, a person living in Jordan might feel obligated
to abstain from alcohol in order to preserve respectability and reputation in the Islamic
community, perceiving alcohol usage as morally unacceptable as a result of these societal
standards. Overall, the clear discrepancies across cultures demonstrated by the survey
results reveal that opinions of these activities are subject to alter depending on the country
or culture in which one is immersed.
Further research corroborates this idea. One study focused on students immersed in
different Israeli cultural, social, and educational settings and tested their moral decisionmaking by quantifying their choices based on Lawrence Kohlbergs stages of moral
development. Results revealed hiatuses between Christian and Muslim students, kibbutz
and non-kibbutz communities (different educational systems), social classes, and genders
(Bar-Yam, Kohlberg, Naame, 1980). The researchers conclude their findings under a
speculation reflecting on these contrasting results of moral aptitude:
Hence, it seems that research lends support to the view that differences in levels of
moral reasoning could be related to differences in cultural background and
educational experiences. Perhaps, the greater degree of social justice, equal rights,

Culture on Moral Reasoning 10

and democratic participation in a society, the more stimulating that society can be for
the moral development of its members (360-361).

From these results and reflections, it can be understood that environmental factors could
account for differences in moral decision-making.

Religion
We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity. Our
movement is Christian.
-Adolf Hitler, 1928

When referring to cross-cultural discrepancy and to morality in general, the subject of

religion ultimately finds its way to supplement discourse. That religion and morality are
intertwined is a common understanding of humanity yet simultaneously, there are yet
individuals who find that religion need not be a precondition for good moral character.
A mixture of these mindsets is supported in another study conducted by Pew Research
Center that evaluated whether individuals across the world in thirty-nine countries found a
belief in God essential to morality (Worldwide, Many See Belief in God as Essential to
Morality, 2014). Of these thirty-nine countries, twenty-two yielded a majority that believed
faith in God necessary for good moral character, most prevalent among Africa and the
Middle East and also dominantly in Asian/Pacific and Latin American regions (Worldwide,
2014). However, in Australia, North America, and Europe, far fewer uphold this same
standard; the data supports that individuals who reside in wealthier nations place less
emphasis on the need to believe in God to have good values than do the more impoverished
nations (Worldwide, 2014). That being said, the United States yet stands as an exception to
this observation with more evenly divided attitudes on this perceived moral necessity

Culture on Moral Reasoning 11

(Worldwide, 2014). From this data it is clear that religion heavily influences individual
perception of moral character. Moral issues in a country such as Indonesia that showed 99%
of people who found it necessary to believe in God for moral integrity will ultimately be
viewed through the lens of religion whereas in other countries such as France, wherein 85%
do not find that faith essential to upright character, religion is not likely to be that which
influences one attempting to make a moral decision (Worldwide 2014). In this vein, religion
may possibly play a central role in shaping an individuals view on morality and moral
issues depending on its pervasiveness of importance in respective cultures.
Researchers cite one of the Big Four religious dimensions as behaving which can be
described as subscribing to certain moral norms, and exerting self-control to behave in
accordance with these norms (McKay, Whitehouse, 2015). That this action of behaving is a
keystone religious dimension speaks to the influence of religion on ones moral decisionmaking. The phrase exerting self-control reflects a certain expectation to shape oneself to
match the mold of a larger following in accordance withnorms, an idea reminiscent of a
cultural factor influential enough to overshadow an individuals morality (McKay, Whitehouse,
2015). For example, if one religion or culture were to glorify killing rebels as moral, then, in
keeping with the behaving dimension, an individual personally disgusted by the idea might
exert self-control over his abstinence of killing and instead act in accordance with these
norms of killing. While this is a hypothetical scenario, such cases can likely be discerned
among modern-day religious cultures, especially with the violence exemplified by Islamic
extremist groups and other extremist religion cultures conducive to violent and immoral
behavior.

Culture on Moral Reasoning 12

Money and Status
Morality is a matter of money. Poor people cannot afford to have morals. So they have
religion.
-Khushwant Singh
As aforementioned, a correlation exists between religion, the wealth of a particular
nation, and individual morals. Similarly, socioeconomic status may influence an individuals
moral inclinations. Researchers explored moral decision-making in the context of varying
demographics, uncovering a relationship between socio-economic status and moral
decision-making (Caravita et. al, 2012). The research compared socio-conventional
decisions (decision in which breach of societal rules is involved, not others safety) with
moral decisions (concerned with others safety and fairness) as well as personal and
impersonal moral dilemmas (as aforesaid, with difference in emotional presence of another
person), and the results expressed variation across socioeconomic groupings. For example,
children and adolescents in rural areas perceived rules less breakable than urban peers did
and rural youngsters were more likely to justify their moral decisions mainly in the
norm-followingmodes, proving that simply the context of a certain social class
influences moral decision-making (Caravita et al., 2012). These findings once again
accentuate a pervasive cultural influence that shapes even what might be thought of as an
innate sense morality.

Supremacy of Nurturing
Teaching kids to count is fine, but teaching them what counts is best.
-Bob Talbert

Culture on Moral Reasoning 13

In babies researchers discover an inborn tendency to trust adultsa tendency that
permits malleability of values and morals by external social factors. Powerless of inquiry
and unconscious of dishonesty, babies generally believe what they are told, a claim
corroborated by a study in which children were given the task of finding a sticker under a
cup. The children watched the researcher place the sticker under a yellow cup, for example,
but then the researcher said that the sticker was under the red cup. The children repeatedly
trusted the testimony of the researcher (choosing the red cup) rather than going with what
they had seen or the additional arrow placed on the cup with the sticker. This study attests to
how children at this young age (about three years old) will trust their authority figures over
their own intuition (Jaswal, Croft, Cole, 2010). Therefore, a child's moral development may
be largely influenced by a parent's values and teaching, or to draw further conclusions, a
childs education. If a three-year-old child was told by a presiding adult that Adolf Hitler
was the wisest ruler of a nation (as might have a child of the Hitler Youth been told), would
this young child question the adult or otherwise unconditionally believe the ad ult? As this
study shows, the immense inclination of a child to trust the testimony and the general lack
of mental autonomy afforded by children of such an age likely promulgate malleability of
morals.
Likewise, it is possible that religious, ideological, and social values bestowed on a
child from a young age have the power to influence moral perceptions and behaviors given
the high capacity of a child to trust testimony.

Culture on Moral Reasoning 14

Conclusion
Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.
-Gilbert K. Chesterton
As visible in the plethora of research examples listed in this analysis as well as
visible in moral situations witnessed oftentimes disseminated through mass media and even
in our immediate surroundings, morality is largely unquantifiable yet particularly influential
in society. In keeping with an objective to finally uncover what truly shapes a moral
compass, the research reveals that individuals are born with a somewhat innate and similar
standard of morality across groupings; however this inborn morality will ultimately and
inevitably be influenced by the unique environment in which one is nurtured.
What does this mean for the future of humanity? How can we reduce the relativity of
morality when, as one study exemplifies, one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter
(McKay, Whitehouse, 2015)? Is all hope of correcting morality doomed for eternal
stagnation? Is there a way by which a universal morality be created for the sake of
undermining beliefs that condone unethical behavior?
Unfortunately, these crucial questions are nearly impossible to answer with utter
certainty. However, in the spirit of optimism and hopeful progress, perhaps a promulgation of
youthful independence in belief, further education about internal dispositions capable of immoral
behavior (in other words, an attempt to inform people about the immoral capacity of every
person rather than an attempt to eradicate what will inevitably remain), human rights advocates
to promote moral character, and continued concentrated study focusing on defining the
undefinable will be that which proliferates a moral progress so terribly lacking in globalized
modern society.

Culture on Moral Reasoning 15

Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.
Immanuel Kant

Culture on Moral Reasoning 16

Reference List
(2013). Global Views on Morality. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/15/global-morality/.
(2014). Worldwide, Many See Belief in God as Essential to Morality. Pew Research Center.
Retrieved from http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/03/13/worldwide-many-see-belief-ingod-as-essential-to-morality/.
Bar-Yam, M., Kohlberg, L., & Naame, A.. (1980). Moral Reasoning of Students in Different
Cultural, Social, and Educational Settings. American Journal of Education, 88(3),
345362. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1085057.
Bloom, Paul. Wynn, Karen. "Babies Help Unlock the Origins of Morality." 60 Minutes.
CBS. WCBS, New York: 18 Nov 2012. Television. Retrieved from
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/.
Caravita, S. C. S., Giardino, S., Lenzi, L., Salvaterra, M., & Antonietti, A. (2012). Socioeconomic factors related to moral reasoning in childhood and adolescence: the missing
link between brain and behavior. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 262.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00262
Encina, G. B. (2004). Milgrams Experiment on Obedience to Authority. University of
California. Retrieved from https://nature.berkeley.edu/ucce50/aglabor/7article/article35.htm.

Culture on Moral Reasoning 17

Ito, M. (2014). Dealing with addiction: Japans drinking problem. The Japan Times. Retrieved
from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/08/30/lifestyle/dealing-addiction-japansdrinking-problem/#.VxhXbfkrLIV.
Jaswal, V. K., Croft, A. C., Setia, A. R., & Cole, C. A. (2010). Young Children Have a Specific,
Highly Robust Bias to Trust Testimony. Psychological Science, 21(10), 15411547.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383438.
Kirsch, A., Galchen, R. (2013). Fifty Years Later, Why Does Eichmann in Jersulam Remain
Contentious?. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/books/review/fifty-years-later-why-does-eichmannin-jerusalem-remain-contentious.html.
Landau, E. (2014, March 27). How your brain makes moral judgments. CNN. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/26/health/brain-moral-judgments/.
McFerran, B., Aquino, K., & Duffy, M. (2010). How personality and moral identity relate to
individuals ethical ideology. Business Ethics Quarterly,20(01), 35-56.
McKay, R., & Whitehouse, H. (2015). Religion and Morality. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2),
447473. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0038455.
Teich, J. (2012). Viewed by many as a disgrace, a drinking culture is developing in Amman.
Northeastern University Journalism Abroad 2012. Retrieved from
https://northeasternuniversityjournalism2012.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/viewed-bymany-as-a-disgrace-a-drinking-culture-is-emerging-in-amman/.