Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T19:54:23.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Puritanical moral rules as moral heuristics coping with uncertainties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2023

Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu Open the ORCID record for Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu [Opens in a new window]
Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu*
Affiliation:
Bilkent University, Faculty of Business Administration, Universiteler Mah., Cankaya-Ankara, Turkey. r.s.kurdoglu@bilkent.edu.tr; http://fba.bilkent.edu.tr/rasim-serdar-kurdoglu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As the cultural evolution of a puritanical moral norm in Turkey illustrates, puritanical moral norms are not developed by nonrational reasoning concerned with purity and cleanliness. People use puritanical moral rules as moral heuristics for making intendedly rational decisions about whether to cooperate or not when the commitment of the counterparty is uncertain.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e309
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Askun, D., & Ataca, B. (2007). Sexuality related attitudes and behaviors of Turkish university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(5), 741–752. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9186-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behar, C. (1991). Polygyny in Istanbul, 1885–1926. Middle Eastern Studies, 27(3), 477–486. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, M. W., Bauer, H. M., Arican, N., Korur Fincanci, S., & Iacopino, V. (1999). Virginity examinations in Turkey: Role of forensic physicians in controlling female sexuality. JAMA, 282(5), 485–490. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.5.485CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Devine, P. & Plant, A. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Random House.Google Scholar
Kurdoglu, R. S. (2019). An inquiry into pseudo-legitimations: A framework to investigate the clash of managerial legitimations and employees’ unfairness claims. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(1), 129–138. doi: 10.1111/beer.12202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurdoglu, R. S. (2020). The mirage of procedural justice and the primacy of interactional justice in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), 495–512. doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04166-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurdoglu, R. S., & Ateş, N. Y. (2022). Arguing to defeat: Eristic argumentation and irrationality in resolving moral concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 175, 519–535. doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04659-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozyegin, G. (2015).New desires, new selves: Sex, love, and piety among Turkish youth. New York University Press. doi: 10.18574/nyu/9780814762349.001.0001Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 19. doi: 10.1146/ANNUREV.PS.41.020190.000245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 531–573. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000099CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu, İ., & Ergöçmen, B. A. (2014). Early marriage: Trends in Turkey, 1978–2008. Journal of Family Issues, 35(12), 1707–1724. doi: 10.1177/0192513X14538025CrossRefGoogle Scholar