Trusting Our Instincts: Evaluating the Evolutionary and Rational Foundations of Moral Intuitions

This paper delves into the nature and reliability of moral intuitions, building upon Jonathan Haidt’s social intuitionist model, which suggests that moral judgments stem from instinctive reactions followed by rational justifications. By examining Haidt’s experiments, which reveal the primacy of intuitive responses over rational deliberation, this paper seeks to address whether we have valid reasons to trust these moral intuitions. Drawing from evolutionary psychology, it argues that moral intuitions have historically contributed to the survival and success of the human species, thereby providing them with normative value. However, given the rapid advancements in technology and societal changes, these intuitions may sometimes lead to nonoptimal or disastrous outcomes. The paper proposes a rational test to determine the reliability of moral intuitions: we should trust an intuition if its generalized application benefits the human species. Potential counterarguments, such as the historical misuse of evolutionary logic in eugenics, are addressed to underscore the validity of this test. The conclusion emphasizes that while moral intuitions are generally trustworthy due to their evolutionary roots, rational thought must intervene when intuitions become outdated in the face of contemporary challenges.