Does good lead to more good?
Must mental morality scales
balance good and bad?
Our ethical mindset is the key, according to new research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.  Gert Cornelissen of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra and colleagues found that people who have a Machiavellian mindset are more likely weigh their good deeds against their bad deeds, while those who have a personal code are more likely to have  consistency in their behavior, even if that behavior is bad. 

What does this mean?  If human nature tends to moral relativism, situational ethics tends to amorality, and internally set morality rules lead simply to consistent morality that maybe anywhere on the spectrum, one would come to the conclusion that an external moral compass is the logical, sensible, and necessary guide.  As I have posted in the past, my belief is that humans are inherently empathetic, with built-in mirror neurons that allow living in social situations.  These tendencies are influenced by experience based interpretation.
The individual instinctually sets up a set of rules for survival.  If compassionate behavior is the goal, then teaching relevant values within a moral system is the our responsibility if the desired outcome is a just, loving, and compassionate world. 


G. Cornelissen, M. R. Bashshur, J. Rode, M. Le Menestrel. Rules or Consequences? The Role of Ethical Mind-Sets in Moral Dynamics. Psychological Science, 2013

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply.