Creativity and Morality

By James C. Kaufman

Creativity and Morality summarizes and integrates research on creativity used to achieve bad or immoral ends. The book includes the use of deception, novel ideas to commit wrongdoings across contexts, including in organizations, the classroom and terrorism. Morality is discussed from an individual perspective and relative to broader sociocultural norms that allow people to believe actions are justified. Chapters explore this research from an interdisciplinary perspective, including from psychology, philosophy, media studies, aesthetics and ethics.

• Summarizes research on creativity used for immoral purposes
• Identifies individual and sociocultural perspectives on morality
• Explores creativity in business, education, design and criminal behavior
• Includes research from psychology, philosophy, ethics, and more

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Oct 27, 2022
• ISBN: 9780323856683

Book preview

Part I

Introduction

Outline

Chapter 1. Creativity, morality, and the AMORAL model

Chapter 2. Morality and creativity overlapping in beneficial and harmful ways: an interdisciplinary exploration

Chapter 3. Positive creativity as the intersection between creativity, intelligence, and wisdom

Chapter 1: Creativity, morality, and the AMORAL model

Hansika Kapoor ¹ , ² , and James C. Kaufman ²       ¹ Monk Prayogshala, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India      ² University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, United States

Abstract

The introductory chapter to Creativity and Morality outlines the relationship between the constructs, summarizing the AMORAL model of dark creativity (Kapoor & Kaufman, in press). Specifically, the Antecedents, Mechanisms (individual), Operants (environmental), Realization, Aftereffects, and Legacy of the creative action are theorized and described within the context of general and dark creativity. We present real-life and simulated examples to illustrate the application of the theory across multiple domains, from law enforcement to interpersonal relationships, from the initial idea to the impact of the eventual action. The AMORAL model will help introduce the main concepts that will be addressed in subsequent chapters.

Keywords

Creativity; Ethics; Malevolent creativity; Morality; Theory

Usually, conversations about creativity do not overlap with morality. In general, creative works are not only original and effective but also are implicitly if not explicitly meant to benefit others. However, in recent times, questions have arisen about this implicit virtue status of creative processes—does it therefore mean that coming up with a new way to embezzle funds is not creative? Or else that it is creative, but we may be reluctant to admit that because it is morally wrong to cheat? Or, perhaps, that those who might originate and implement such an idea may not be worthy of the creative label? The moral implications of original and harmful or self-interested actions are coming to the fore, mobilizing creativity researchers to investigate this intersection more critically.

The purpose of this book is to present a wide array of research, theory, and synthesis from the frontline of creativity and morality scholarship. There has been increasing interest among academic circles about the notion of dark creativity, that is, using original means to achieve bad and, at times, evil goals (Cropley et al., 2010). Such acts can be self-serving and selfish or even directly harmful to others. This concept stands in contrast to the more traditional assumption that creativity is a positive force, used primarily to meet benevolent ends that benefit society (e.g., Kampylis & Valtanen, 2010). However, the increasing interest in dark creativity merits examining its implications within broader ethical and moral frameworks. Therefore, this volume explores the potentially negative objectives that may underlie some original actions, their accompanying moral/immoral associations, and how creativity broadly relates to the concept of morality. We hope that such a collection can help develop the intersecting fields of creativity and morality and inspire additional work.

Although emphasis on this dark side of creativity is relatively new, the past decade has seen several advances in empirical knowledge of its connections with cognitive and behavioral mechanisms (Cropley & Cropley, 2019), such as deception (Kapoor & Khan, 2017). Similarly, research has also studied novel ideas to commit wrongdoings across contexts, such as in organizations (Clark & James, 1999), the classroom (Kapoor, 2019; Kapoor & Kaufman, 2020), and terrorism (Logan et al., 2020). Apart from an individual's moral compass that indicates the difference between right and wrong, immediate and broader sociocultural norms also shape one's thoughts and actions regarding the (in)appropriateness of novel solutions. The fact that dark creativity can lead to destruction brings the discussion into the scope of moral considerations. Moreover, because there may not be a one-to-one correspondence between an individual's intent to be novel and useful and the eventual outcome of their creative action, it becomes necessary to explore the morality of such unintended consequences.

The relationship of creativity with morally dubious characteristics, such as lower integrity, cheating, and dishonesty has been well-established (Beaussart et al., 2013; Gino & Ariely, 2012; Gino & Wiltermuth, 2014; Storme et al., 2021; Walczyk et al., 2008). Yet another theoretical but evidence-based paper evaluated studies such as the above and proposed a positive association between creativity and morality (Shen et al., 2019). Differences in the intention–outcome relationship as well as the contexts within which innovative harm is implemented may explain such discrepancies. It thus becomes even more essential to have a volume of leaders in the field dedicated toward establishing when, how, and why dark creativity intertwines with moral concerns.

To elucidate the emergence, maintenance, and consequences of dark creativity, we have outlined the AMORAL model—Antecedents, Mechanisms (individual), Operants (environmental), Realization, Aftereffects, and Legacy—of the creative action (Kapoor & Kaufman, 2022). The model is similar to, yet different from, existing theories of creativity. For instance, we propose certain components that may contribute to the dark side of creativity, drawing from foundational componential (Amabile, 1983; Amabile & Pratt, 2016) and motivational theories (Hennessey, 2019; Hennessey & Amabile, 1998), as well as our own synthesis of the literature. We further differentiate our theory from existing ones in that it seeks to not only explain but also describe dark creative acts within a broader sociocultural context, including short- and long-term consequences of such actions for society. Although conceptualized within the context of dark creativity, AMORAL can be applied across the valence range of creative outcomes, highlighting the fact that the creative process is essentially unguided, unless we apply a priori constraints to ideation and execution (Simonton, 2011). Moral beliefs can be one such condition.

A: antecedents

What motivates an individual to be creative? Numerous antecedents ranging from intrinsic meaning to tangible rewards to boredom have been shown to drive creativity. Some of these can originate from self-beneficial motives, such as accumulating wealth or wielding power, whereas others can emerge from wanting to benefit society, such as altruism. A pertinent antecedent of relevance to the current volume is an individual's belief system. The moral rightness or wrongness of a creative act is necessarily determined with reference to one's dominant beliefs. Similarly, beliefs can also guide the admissibility of certain creative thoughts and subsequent actions. In the absence of a moral speed bump, divergent thinking can be deviant and harmful as well. For instance, when the Impact Team hacked the website Ashley Madison, an adult-service that facilitates extramarital affairs, they threatened to and eventually leaked confidential user data (Kapoor et al., 2016). It can be argued that the hack was motivated both by their beliefs and need to exert power over that type of corporation. Indeed, consider that views on adultery vary wildly; someone who views adultery as an unforgivable sin may view the Ashley Madison hackers as engaging in benevolent creativity because of its potential to reduce widespread infidelity.

M: mechanisms (individual)

These are microlevel characteristics of creative actors and draw from vast scholarship in creativity literature. An obvious mechanism is an individual's propensity to be creative, comparable to creativity-relevant processes in earlier theories (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Similarly, intellectual ability finds a place in many creativity theories, such as the Investment theory (Sternberg & Lubart, 1992), further emphasizing the connection between these higher-order cognitive processes (Sternberg et al., 2021). Next, action-relevant knowledge comprises a mechanism wherein an individual needs to be proficient within a specific domain—positive or negative. For instance, a hacker may not have the requisite skills to forge a check, and vice versa. Consider the character of Younger Brother in the novel-turned-film-turned-musical Ragtime. Desperate to find his life's calling, he seeks to join Coalhouse Walker, who is inciting acts of rebellion to protest the racist behavior of fire fighters. When Younger Brother gets an audience with Walker, he is filled with so many conflicting emotions that all he can say is the specific talent he can bring to the cause: I know how to blow things up (Doctorow, 1974).

Next, personality characteristics such as undesirable traits of the Dark Triad (Kapoor & Khan, 2016) as well as brighter traits like openness/intellect can influence the nature of creativity (Feist, 1998; Kaufman et al., 2016). The final two mechanisms are particularly relevant to the current volume: socioemotional skills and personal values. The former comprises an individual's capacity to navigate social situations, and manage their own and identify others' emotions (e.g., Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Such skills can help someone be an amazingly creative therapist or caregiver. However, when coupled with other mechanisms, such as a Machiavellian personality, high socioemotional skills can facilitate being emotionally manipulative for self-serving goals. Personal values align closely with the antecedent of belief systems as well as morality more generally. Research has found that creative individuals are more likely to be able to justify their moral transgressions (Gino & Ariely, 2012; Mai et al., 2015), making ethics, values, morality, and beliefs as integral to the study of dark creativity as they are to understanding how people engage in personal or transformative creativity (e.g., Sternberg, 2020). Research has also identified differential relationships between moral foundations—care, fairness, ingroup, authority, purity—and creativity, particularly malevolent creativity (Kapoor & Kaufman, 2021). Whereas malevolent creativity was related to lower moral concerns in general, creativity was positively related to higher concerns on care and fairness foundations. Personal moral dispositions as well as behaviors in moral dilemmas are potential areas for future studies to extend this work.

O: operants (environmental)

Contextual operants align with Rhodes' (1961) P of press and Glăveanu's (2013) A's of affordance and audience. These are material assets with which creative products are made as well as social assets like other creators, contemporaries, and critics. Another salient social asset of relevance is one's ingroup, defined as narrowly or broadly as one chooses. This is because creativity tends to disrupt dominant sociomoral norms, but not to the extent that one is sanctioned by their own group. Indeed, such a connection follows the reverse path, as well; people tend to believe that those in their ingroup are more creative (Haslam et al., 2013). Cultural ideology is also a macrolevel operant within which all creativity is situated and interpreted. Further, ideologies evolve and develop over time, making originality not only context-specific but also time-bound.

An example of dark original actions intertwined with cultural ideology took place in India in the 1850s, when the British introduced new rifle cartridges that required soldiers to bite through the greased cartridges to use them. A rumor quickly spread among the ranks that the grease contained animal fat of cows and pigs—significant animals for Hindus and Muslims, respectively, who made up a large proportion of the then British military (Dash, 2012). Although it is still officially claimed that the British made this faux pas unknowingly, we retrospectively consider it to be a devious yet novel act of warfare. Echoes of this practice continued into 2016, when an American police chief claimed to specifically dip bullets in bacon grease for the express purpose of offending Muslims (Silverstein, 2016).

R: realization

The actualization of creativity culminates from the intersection of antecedents, mechanisms, and operants. The act is characterized by its intended valence, which is distinct from the actual valence of the act. Intended valence also ranges from noble (positive anchor, aligning with benevolent creativity) to neutral to ambiguous to self-interested to sinful to evil (negative anchor, aligning with malevolent creativity). One reason for updating the language used to describe dark creativity is to allow greater nuance than currently exists with only negative and malevolent as descriptors. New terms can also provide a gradation of valence contained within the creative act. Our goal is to help establish a classification of dark creativity that allows for a continuum between finding a new way to get paid for falsely working overtime and finding a new way to commit murder. The AMORAL model also theorizes three submechanisms that facilitate the movement of actions across this range of valence: deception, manipulation, and coercion. All three submechanisms have sociomoral implications, making them relevant to broader discussions of creativity and morality.

Another component of the realization of the act is the nature of the actor, who could be a single entity, a pair of persons, a small group, or a wide-reaching network. Similarly, the nature of the target comprises both the focus (number of entities targeted) and proximity (closeness between the actor and target) involved. The AMORAL model assumed that dark creativity is nearly always directed toward a target; however, this may not be necessary for positive or benevolent creativity (Kapoor & Khan, 2019). The arena within which creativity is expressed is another component of the realization of the act; this could be public, private, or online. Last, and of most relevance to this volume, is the component of chance or moral luck (Hartman, 2019). The AMORAL model acknowledges that random opportunities may facilitate creative expression and can lead to disparities between intentions and realized outcomes.

A: aftereffects

After the realization of the creative act, immediate and/or short-term consequences are expected based on the breadth and depth of harm/benefit as well as the actual valence of the act. Irrespective of the intended valence, aftereffects are determined based on the realized valence, highlighting that a one-to-one correspondence between intent and outcome is not necessary (Cropley, 2010). As is conventionally understood, breadth refers to the number of entities affected by the realized act, which could be the number of people killed (such as comparing Ted Bundy and Jack the Ripper) or the number of people rescued (such as comparing Raoul Wallenberg and Miep Gies). Depth refers to the extent of the harm/benefit, which is where incongruent valences between the actor's intent and the eventual outcome may come into play. For example, lobotomies in the 1940s required the severing of nerve connections in the prefrontal cortex. The surgical procedure was intended to be used to cure intractable forms of epilepsy and mental illness, particularly in violent individuals. Although the intent was initially benevolent (to remedy illness), the surgery left patients with an extremely restricted range of intellect and affect, essentially changing their very being; many people died or were left virtually unresponsive after the procedure. People were often lobotomized for a wide variety of reasons, sometimes for as little as unconventional behavior. Lobotomies are retrospectively seen as a very negative incident in medical history (Johnson, 2009).

L: legacy

Apart from immediate aftereffects, some creative actors and acts can go on to attain legacy status, akin to Big-C in the Four C model (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Only in the long run can society recognize original harm or benefit, intended or not. Morally righteous, morally dubious, and outright immoral actors have left creative legacies that can guide future work. Ranging from Mahatma Gandhi (noble) to Hitler (evil), creative actors and their legacies impact entire generations.

Moving forward

To contribute to the growing literature on ethical implications of original acts, this volume has solicited chapters investigating the myriad relationships between creativity and morality at both theoretical and empirical levels. We hope that the volume will be able to provide an interdisciplinary perspective on the issue of creativity and morality, with chapters grounded in the disciplines of psychology, philosophy, media studies, aesthetics, and ethics. In sum, this volume is anticipated to increase our understanding and knowledge about an emergent intersection in human behavior—that between novelty and morality—by exploring such scholarship across kinds of destruction, domains, and disciplines. We hope that you enjoy these explorations of moral, immoral, and AMORAL creativity.

References

1. Amabile T.M. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 1983;45(2):357–376. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357.

2. Amabile T.M, Pratt M.G. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning.  Research in Organizational Behavior . 2016;36:157–183. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001.

3. Beaussart M.L, Andrews C.J, Kaufman J.C. Creative liars: The relationship between creativity and integrity.  Thinking Skills and Creativity . 2013;9:129–134. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.10.003.

4. Clark K, James K. Justice and positive and negative creativity.  Creativity Research Journal . 1999;12(4):311–320. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1204_9.

5. Cropley D.H. Summary - the dark side of creativity: A differentiated model. In: Cropley D.H, Cropley A.J, Kaufman J.C, Runco M.A, eds.  The dark side of creativity . Cambridge University Press; 2010:360–373.

6. Cropley D.H, Cropley A.J. Creativity and malevolence: Past, present, and future. In: Kaufman J.C, Sternberg R.J, eds.  The cambridge handbook of creativity . 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 2019:677–690.

7. Cropley D.H, Cropley A.J, Kaufman J.C, Runco M.A, eds.  The dark side of creativity . Cambridge University Press; 2010.

8. Dash M.  Pass it on: The secret that preceded the Indian rebellion of 1857 . Smithsonian Magazine; 2012.

9. Doctorow E.L.  Ragtime . Random House; 1974.

10. Feist G.J. A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity.  Personality and Social Psychology Reviews . 1998;2(4):290–309. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_1.

11. Gino F, Ariely D. The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 2012;102(3):445–459. doi: 10.1037/a0026406.

12. Gino F, Wiltermuth S.S. Evil genius? How dishonesty can lead to greater creativity.  Psychological Science . 2014;25(4):973–981. doi: 10.1177/0956797614520714.

13. Glăveanu V.P. Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A's framework.  Review of General Psychology . 2013;17(1):69–81. doi: 10.1037/a0029528.

14. Hartman R.J. Moral luck and the unfairness of morality.  Philosophical Studies . 2019;176(12):3179–3197. doi: 10.1007/s11098-018-1169-5.

15. Haslam S.A, Adarves-Yorno I, Postmes T, Jans L. The collective origins of valued originality: A social identity approach to creativity.  Personality and Social Psychology Review . 2013;17(4):384–401. doi: 10.1177/1088868313498001.

16. Hennessey B.A. Motivation and creativity. In: Kaufman J.C, Sternberg R.J, eds.  Cambridge handbook of creativity . 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 2019:374–395. .

17. Hennessey B.A, Amabile T.M. Reality, intrinsic motivation, and creativity.  American Psychologist . 1998;53(6):674–675. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.6.674.

18. Johnson J. A dark history: Memories of lobotomy in the new era of psychosurgery.  Medicine Studies . 2009;1(4):367–378. doi: 10.1007/s12376-009-0031-7.

19. Kampylis P.G, Valtanen J. Redefining creativity—analyzing definitions, collocations, and consequences.  The Journal of Creative Behavior . 2010;44(3):191–214. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01333.x.

20. Kapoor H. Creative resistance in learning environments. In: Peters M.A, Heraud R, eds.  Springer encyclopedia of educational innovation . Springer Singapore; 2019 doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-2262-4.

21. Kapoor H, Kaufman J.C. The evil within: The AMORAL model of dark creativity.  Theory & Psychology . 2022 doi: 10.1177/09593543221074326.

22. Kapoor H, Kaufman J.C. Are cheaters common or creative?: Person-situation interactions of resistance in learning contexts.  Journal of Academic Ethics . 2020;19:157–174. doi: 10.1007/s10805-020-09379-w.

23. Kapoor H, Kaufman J.C. Unbound: The relationship among creativity, moral foundations, and dark personality.  The Journal of Creative Behavior . 2021 doi: 10.1002/jocb.523.

24. Kapoor H, Khan A. The measurement of negative creativity: Metrics and relationships.  Creativity Research Journal . 2016;28(4):407–416. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1229977.

25. Kapoor H, Khan A. Deceptively yours: Valence-based creativity and deception.  Thinking Skills and Creativity . 2017;23:199–206. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2016.12.006.

26. Kapoor H, Khan A. Creativity in context: Presses and task effects in negative creativity.  Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts . 2019;13(3):314–321. doi: 10.1037/aca0000183.

27. Kapoor H, Tagat A, Cropley D.H. Fifty shades of creativity: Case studies of malevolent creativity in art, science, and technology. In: Reisman F.K, ed.  Creativity in arts, science, and technology . KIE Conference Publications; 2016:25–44 2016.

28. Kaufman J.C, Beghetto R.A. Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity.  Review of General Psychology . 2009;13(1):1–12. doi: 10.1037/a0013688.

29. Kaufman S.B, Quilty L.C, Grazioplene R.G, Hirsh J.B, Gray J.R, Peterson J.B, DeYoung C.G.Openness to experience and intellect differentially predict creative achievement in the arts and sciences.  Journal of Personality . 2016;84(2):248–258. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12156.

30. Logan M.K, Ligon G.S, Derrick D.C. Measuring tactical innovation in terrorist attacks.  Journal of Creative Behavior . 2020;54(4):926–939. doi: 10.1002/jocb.420.

31. Mai K.M, Ellis A.P.J, Welsh D.T. The gray side of creativity: Exploring the role of activation in the link between creative personality and unethical behavior.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology . 2015;60:76–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.05.004.

32. Rhodes M. An analysis of creativity.  The Phi Delta Kappan . 1961;42(7):305–310. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20342603.

33. Salovey P, Mayer J.D. Emotional intelligence.  Imagination, Cognition and Personality . 1990;9(3):185–211. doi: 10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG.

34. Shen W, Yuan Y, Yi B, Liu C, Zhan H. A theoretical and critical examination on the relationship between creativity and morality.  Current Psychology . 2019;38:469–485. doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9613-9.

35. Silverstein J.  Alabama police chief accused of ‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ for Facebook posts about bacon-greased bullets . New York Daily News; October 9, 2016.

36. Simonton D.K. Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell's (1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark.  Review of General Psychology . 2011;15(2):158–174. doi: 10.1037/a0022912. .

37. Sternberg R.J. Transformational giftedness: Rethinking our paradigm for gifted education.  Roeper Review . 2020;42(4):230–240. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2020.1815266.

38. Sternberg R.J, Glaveanu V, Karami S, Kaufman J.C, Phillipson S.N, Preiss D.D.Meta-intelligence: Understanding, control, and interactivity between creative, analytical, practical, and wisdom-based approaches in problem dolving.  Journal of Intelligence . 2021;9(2):19. doi: 10.3390/jintelligence9020019.

39. Sternberg R.J, Lubart T.I. Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity.  Current Directions in Psychological Science . 1992;1(1):1–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.1992.tb00002.x.

40. Storme M, Celik P, Myszkowski N. Creativity and unethicality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts . 2021;15(4):664–672. doi: 10.1037/aca0000332.

41. Walczyk J.J, Runco M.A, Tripp S.M, Smith C.E. The creativity of lying: Divergent thinking and ideational correlates of the resolution of social dilemmas.  Creativity Research Journal . 2008;20(3):328–342. doi: 10.1080/10400410802355152.

Chapter 2: Morality and creativity overlapping in beneficial and harmful ways

an interdisciplinary exploration

Don Ambrose     Rider University, Lawrenceville, NJ, United States

Abstract

There is considerable overlap when it comes to moral and creative actions in the world. Initiatives that are morally positive, or immoral, often require creativity. An interdisciplinary search can help us build a stronger understanding of this overlap. This analysis is based on a collection of insights derived from theories and research findings in diverse fields. Each insight reveals ways in which phenomena and contextual pressures from socioeconomic, cultural, scientific, and ideological frameworks can influence the moral dimensions of creative processes and outcomes. The exploration reveals some ways that interdisciplinary thinking and collaboration can inject stronger ethical awareness into human actions.

Keywords

Chaos-order continuum; Cognitive diversity; Creativity; Ethics; Interdisciplinary; Mass deception

When investigating complex, multidimensional concepts, it is important to carry out interdisciplinary explorations because those concepts stretch out into the conceptual terrain of diverse fields. Constructs borrowed from diverse disciplines make up the core of this analysis; however, before justifying and exploring the use of these ideas and phenomena, it is important to clarify some aspects of the structure and dynamics of creativity and morality. This clarification establishes the basis for the connections with the concepts imported through the interdisciplinary investigation.

Creativity as multidimensional

The field of creativity studies has included diverse conceptions of creativity (see Beghetto & Corazza, 2019; Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Kaufman, 2016; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2019 Runco, 2014; Runco & Pritzker, 2020; Sawyer, 2012; Sternberg, 2018, 2021). A helpful conception for this analysis is the portrayal of creativity as novel, often surprising, task-appropriate behavior that is compelling because it brings forth some form of high-quality actions or products (see Kaufman & Sternberg, 2019). Another element of creativity is an attitude toward life that encourages one to embrace the decision to be creative, even in the face of barriers (Sternberg, 2002). These barriers often include the resistance of populations in societies when creative actions show the potential to disturb the stability of those societies (Sternberg, 2018). The emergence of actions or products is important when considering the overlap with morality because there always is the possibility that creative work will have ethical implications that can range from minimal to world changing.

Ethics and morality as multifaceted

Just as creativity is a complex construct that includes multiple viewpoints, conceptions of morality include a wide variety of theoretical perspectives. Morality actually might include more conceptual variation than creativity. First there is a distinction between ethics and morality, which is similar to the differences between theory and practice in an academic field (Ambrose & Cross, 2009; Sahakian & Sahakian, 1966). Ethics involves the framing of ideas about good work or harmful actions in the world. Morality involves the actual carrying out of those actions.

Ethical awareness and morality have been explored by leading thinkers in various fields for millennia. An early, prominent example is Aristotle (1908), who created the concept of the golden mean, which portrayed the achievement of positive moral actions as arising from successful navigation between behavioral extremes. In one example, courage is the virtuous balance between cowardice, the extreme of deficiency, and recklessness, the extreme of excess.

About two millennia later, philosopher Immanuel Kant (1988) argued that a moral imagination is necessary for producing and sustaining moral actions. Through his construct of the categorical imperative, he described moral intuition as the ability to imagine what would happen if the rules we use to make our decisions became universal. For example, people should be able to imagine their own selfishness causing devastation in the world if it becomes widespread. Then they are more likely to guide their moral actions by that realization.

A more recent ethical construct, coming from ethical philosophers Gewirth (2009) and Monroe (1996, 2004, 2011), is the distinction between particularist and universalist morality. Those whose ethical thoughts and moral actions align with particularist morality tend to be kind, thoughtful, and generous toward others as long as they are in their own identity group, but they can be dismissive of outsiders, or even vicious toward them. In contrast, those aligning with universalist morality tend to extend morally positive actions toward outsiders as well as those from their own identity group.

Scholars of spirituality have described how monotheistic religion can provide a strong sense of group identity that initiates and sustains altruistic actions; however, as in the aforementioned particularist identity framework, it can cause individuals and groups to think of themselves as superior and virtuous whereas those from other religions are inferior, immoral heretics (see Moore, 2000; Stark, 2003). Essentially, surface-level, shallow religious beliefs can generate both moral and immoral actions whereas deeper spirituality more strongly accesses altruistic tendencies and more often leads to positive moral