An Exploration of Intuitive Judgments About the Explanatory Capacity of Science for Moral Traits

Abstract

With the progress of science and its expanding explanatory role, do Americans believe that morality can and should be explained by science? We investigated whether there are differences in the amount to which people believe science can and should explain moral traits compared to psychological traits in general. Furthermore, we explored the reasons why certain traits are believed to be more appropriate for the explanatory scope of science. We found that people are less comfortable with science explaining moral traits, as compared to other psychological traits. Moreover, we found that levels of comfort with science as an explanation for human traits is positively associated with the extent to which traits are perceived as making humans unique and are subject to conscious decision-making, and negatively associated with how much traits are perceived to be central to identity. Surprisingly, moral traits were still perceived to be less appropriate for scientific explanations even after controlling for these three variables, suggesting that there is a fundamental difference that separates moral traits from other psychological traits regarding the perceived scope of science. Our findings have potential implications for legal and moral judgements and expands the literature on people’s perceptions of science’s explanatory power.