Psychology Puts Morality on a Slippery Slope

[krsna]

 

What is proper versus improper behavior (good versus bad behavior) is not an issue of science, it is an issue of morality. Details such as how people should address each other, the intricacies of polite conversation, holding doors open for women, helping little old ladies across the street, etc., are not really scientific issues. Why, for example, is it considered polite to hold doors open for women approaching an entrance way or that in India it is inappropriate for a woman to speak her husband's name? Conversely, why is it considered impolite when this behavior is not followed? This is well outside the realm of science and squarely within the realm of morality.

 

Our problem is that morality is now widely dictated from the perspective of modern psychology, even though psychology has little if any business dictating morality. Science is a purposeful act; the scientist doesn't just research things for the heck of it. Those who research human behavior do so usually because they care about the human condition and seek to improve it or, more cynically, advance a favored social agenda. Someone practicing science can observe tendencies, make generalizations based on the frequency of the observation, and offer theories as to what might cause the phenomena he or she studies. But because researchers inevitably conduct their research for some purpose--usually personal, social, or political--all too frequently the results of scientific investigation turn out to fit the biases of the researchers and become new baselines for moral behavior. The following examples demonstrate this.

 

In advising a reader asking for advice, a psychiatrist who writes an online advice column used as a baseline for acceptable behavior the observed tendency of today's grandparents to enjoy their grandchildren while having little to no responsibility for taking care of them:

 

 

 

"It's not surprising that you want grandchildren, despite your not wanting additional children. Having grandchildren is completely different. As you know, grandparents get to swoop in and dole out treats to those adorable little ones, and then check out when it is time for the diapering and discipline." (Saltz)

 

Contrasted to this advice, arguing not from a psychological perspective but from an historical perspective, another scholar advised that grandparents should help with the burden of taking care of grandchildren:

 

"With a return to three-generation households united in common enterprise, the burdens of motherhood could be brought back closer to historical norms. Grandparents would help out with the raising of children, and then children would help out with the care of grandparents, while members of all generations contribute to the family enterprise according to their abilities. Time that mothers, as well as fathers, now lose commuting to work or driving back and forth to the day care center or to look in on grandma could be put to more satisfying and useful purposes. The cost of raising children would decline, and parents would benefit more from the human capital they create by raising and educating children." (Longman 191)

The contrast between moral behavior as informed by pschology and moral behavior as informed by history shows how morality is set on a very slippery slope once science is in the business of dictating morality. Becuase psychology, as a science, begins as a purposeful and therefore moral act, psychology as a field cannot help but get into the business of dictating morality--even though it is unfit to do so.

 

Works Cited

Longman, Phillip. The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity. Basic Books: New York, 2004.

 

Saltz, Gail M.D. Help! "I've got grandbaby lust. What do I do?" 10 Nov. 2005. MSNBC.com. 6 Dec. 2005 <http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9985202/>.

 

 

-above from siddhanta.com********************