The emotional dog and its rational tail

Impulsive and Subconscious Decision-Making

Psychologist Jonathan uses a powerful metaphor to describe how our moral judgment works.

He compares our mind to an emotional dog and its rational tail.

He argues that, in most cases, our moral decisions are quick, intuitive, and impulsive—like the wagging of a dog's tail.

How We Create Rational Explanations for Emotional Decisions

The rational part of our mind (the tail) comes into play next. Its function is not so much to make the decision, but to justify it.

Once our "emotional dog" has intuitively decided what is right or wrong, our rational mind goes to work finding arguments to support that decision.

Moral Reason Not Like a Detective, But Like a Defense Attorney

Haidt says that our moral reasoning does not function like a detective searching for objective truth.

Rather, it functions more like a defense attorney who has already decided that his client (the emotion) is innocent, and is now looking for the evidence and arguments to prove it to the jury of our conscience.

Post-Hoc Rationalization of Intuitive Moral Judgments

This process is known as post-hoc (after-the-fact) rationalization. We are unaware that our decision was emotional.

We sincerely believe that we arrived at it through a process of logical thought. The Trolley Dilemma is a perfect example.

Our emotional intuition tells us that pushing the man is wrong, and then our reason looks for justifications like the doctrine of double effect to explain that feeling.

Summary

Jonathan compares moral judgment to an emo