..... In what I found to be a very important and enlightening paper, psychologist Jonathan Haidt addresses the question of what it is that drives and determines our moral judgment, “is it logic or intuition?” In a persuasive paper he argues against the widely assumed supremacy of reason in moral judgment. He points out that there is little evidence of a correlation between moral reasoning and moral action. In fact, to cite an extreme example, psychopaths have been shown to be capable of excellent moral reasoning, but feel no need to act morally. On the other hand, there are strong links between moral emotions and moral action. Because of this, and in combination with other arguments, he puts forth the thesis that most moral judgments are made intuitively, by way of a quick automatic, unconscious, and unreasoned reaction to a situation, rather than via rational, reasoned consideration and judgment. Haidt asserts that rational, reasoned logic is used often to back up, support and argue for the correctness of our intuitive judgments, but only after the fact. Reasoned logic by itself does not give rise to any emotional reaction to the immoral and/or the unethical. However, it is precisely this emotional reaction of disgust, that influences and guides behavior.
For example, when we hear that people in some cultures eat dog meat, our automatic reaction is that of disgust, even though there is no rational reason for differentiating between dog meat and the meat of any other mammal. Our reaction is intuitive, and based on our individual and cultural experiences. Haidt puts forth an intricate theory to explain how our experiences create such intuitive reactions. In essence it comes down to childhood experiences with moral episodes—individual, familial, and communal—that create memory traces (somatic “markers”) in the mind, which in the future, when similar episodes come up, give rise to the emotions experienced, i.e., to the kind of “gut feeling” reactions described above.
Haidt argues that “Moral development is primarily a matter of the maturation and cultural shaping of endogenous intuitions. People can acquire explicit propositional knowledge about right and wrong in adulthood, but it is primarily through participation in custom complexes involving sensory, motor, and other forms of implicit knowledge shared with one's peers during the sensitive period of late childhood and adolescence that one comes to feel, physically and emotionally, the self-evident truth of moral propositions.” Similar ideas can also be found in Judaic sources. Thus, the Piaczesner Rebbe Reb Klonymous Kalman Shapira ztz”l writes about different levels of knowledge, the superficial and the profound, each affecting us differently:
There is knowledge that exists in a person’s mind in a dormant state, being accessible when needed, but not constantly affecting one’s thinking and/or behavior. There is a more salient and active kind of knowledge, whose presence influences, affects, colors, and drives one’s thoughts all the time. As for example, an exciting new idea that one has just learned, or an insight that one has just had, which now causes him to interpret experiences and to see other ideas in its light… Certainly, a person’s knowledge of himself, which encompasses his whole being, influences all he knows, to the point that almost everything that he hears or sees is influenced by his self-knowledge and makes him think, “what good will this bring me?” or “can it harm me?” And this is so, to the point that he has to work very hard to remove himself from this self-interest even when he wants to serve G-d, because his mind and all of his thoughts are aroused and moved by his self-knowledge… And so too should be one’s knowledge of G-d. It should not be a superficial kind of knowledge that exists alongside other bits of knowledge that he possesses. Rather, his knowledge of G-d should enter his soul and should unite with his self to the same extent as his self-interest, and it should be with him constantly, be he asleep or awake, and it should arouse and move all of his thoughts, that in all of his thoughts he should recognize Hashem… Therefore it is not sufficient to know G-d in thought alone. Nor in learning Torah alone, rather it requires active physical engagement in the practice of good deeds. For as we have said, knowing G-d superficially is not sufficient. The knowledge must enter his soul and unite with his very self.
The practice of moral and ethical behavior, in a way that encompasses and envelopes the full life experience of the child, as an individual, as a member of his family, his school, and his community, is thus required if we are to imbue the child with an internalized intuitive feeling for ethics and morality. We manage this well in the area of ritualistic mitzvos, which are בין אדם למקום . Thus, all of our children, and all of us adults experience an intuitive reaction of disgust when it comes to treifa meat and the like. We pull our hands away as if from an electric shock when we inadvertently touch muktzah on Shabbos. And we feel a sense of almost physical discomfort after having left the bathroom and until we find a כלי with which to wash our hands. We arrived at such visceral levels of reaction as a result of years of experience with these phenomena. And these were not merely years of individual experience, but rather years of communal experience. We watched our fathers and mothers, our grandparents, aunts and uncles, rabbis, teachers, mentors and friends react to treif, muktza, tum’ah and the like, and we internalized those feelings. We developed a “yuk” reaction to treif, to muktza, and to tum’ah, and we often take pride in these developments. Too bad that our efforts were, in a sense, misdirected. We developed the “yuk reaction” for the wrong items.
[From here]
