ABSTRACT
This chapter presents a model of moral choice, focussing on three main theses. First, the thesis of limited morality contends that people allow themselves some deviation from what they judge to be proper behavior. Such deviation does not stem from weakness of will or imply a departure from the moral community. Second, the thesis of moral balance argues that people calculate a sort of moral balance of themselves on the basis of all their morally relevant actions within a given time span. This balance is compared to a personal standard below which they do not allow themselves to descend. Finally, the thesis of balanced identity claims that, in a conflict between different ought considerations (e.g., morality and personal value), people choose the option that enables them to maintain a satisfactory balance of all components of their identity. Depending on their current balance of identity components, individuals may thus prefer a personal consideration to a moral one.
This model is supported by the results of four empirical studies. Two employed open questions aimed at revealing the moral decision-making process in the case of a hypothetical moral choice or an actual one made by the respondent. The other two studies examined evaluations, perceptions and choices made in regard to protagonists with different “moral balances.”
The results are discussed in relation to two competing theses—that the individual aspires to an ideal morality, and the slippery slope thesis. It is shown that the model of moral balance provides a more comprehensive explanation of moral decision-making than either of these two theses.
