Understanding how people form moral judgments and why prejudices persist remains a challenge in psychology. While research has explored these areas broadly, gaps exist in understanding the neurological differences between major moral philosophies and the roots of nationalism—both of which influence education, policy, and social harmony.

Exploring Moral Frameworks and Prejudice

One way to advance this understanding could involve two research tracks: comparing the cognitive and neural profiles of utilitarians, deontologists, and virtue ethicists; and investigating the psychological triggers of nationalism and ethnic bias. For example, neuroimaging could reveal whether utilitarians rely more on analytical reasoning while deontologists depend on emotional intuition. Similarly, experiments might test whether exposure to multicultural narratives reduces prejudice. Such studies could leverage:

• Cross-cultural surveys to capture diverse perspectives
• Behavioral tasks (e.g., trolley problems) to measure moral decision-making
• Targeted interventions to assess bias reduction techniques

Practical Applications and Stakeholders

The findings could benefit educators designing ethics curricula, policymakers addressing social divisions, and conflict mediators fostering intergroup cooperation. For instance, schools might tailor moral education to students' psychological predispositions, or NGOs could implement prejudice-reducing narratives in at-risk communities. Researchers and funding bodies might collaborate, with incentives ranging from academic publishing opportunities to real-world impact.

Execution and Alignment with Existing Work

A phased approach could start with pilot surveys and small-scale neuroimaging to refine methods, then expand to broader studies. This work would build on foundational research like Joshua Greene’s dual-process theory—which contrasts emotional and deliberative moral judgments—but expand to include virtue ethics and neural mapping. Unlike large-scale surveys (e.g., World Values Survey), the focus would be on actionable insights, such as interventions tested in controlled settings.

By bridging psychology, neuroscience, and ethics, this approach could offer a more nuanced understanding of moral reasoning and conflict—one that moves beyond theory into measurable societal impact.