منابع مشابه
The mismeasure of morals: antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas.
Researchers have recently argued that utilitarianism is the appropriate framework by which to evaluate moral judgment, and that individuals who endorse non-utilitarian solutions to moral dilemmas (involving active vs. passive harm) are committing an error. We report a study in which participants responded to a battery of personality assessments and a set of dilemmas that pit utilitarian and non...
متن کاملMoral dilemmas and moral rules.
Recent work shows an important asymmetry in lay intuitions about moral dilemmas. Most people think it is permissible to divert a train so that it will kill one innocent person instead of five, but most people think that it is not permissible to push a stranger in front of a train to save five innocents. We argue that recent emotion-based explanations of this asymmetry have neglected the contrib...
متن کاملattribution theory and personality traits among efl learners
هدف از این تحقیق یافتن ارتباط بین نحوه نگرش زبان آموزان به موفقیت و شکستشان و نوع شخصیت آنها است. 216 زبان آموز، 111 پسر و 105 دختر، در سطح متوسط که در آموزشگاه زبان انگلیسی شکوه مشغول به تحصیل بودند در این پژوهش شرکت کرده اند. شرکت کننده ها دو پرسشنامه neo-ffi و atfll را تکمیل کرده اند. نتیجه نشان داد که: احساسات با توافق پذیری و وظیفه شناسی ارتباط مثبت و با روان نژندی ارتباط منفی دارد. تصور ا...
15 صفحه اولSentimentalism and Moral Dilemmas
It is sometimes said that certain hard moral choices constitute tragic moral dilemmas in which no available course of action is justifiable, and so the agent is blameworthy whatever she chooses. This paper criticizes a certain approach to the debate about moral dilemmas and considers the metaethical implications of the criticisms. The approach in question has been taken by many advocates as wel...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Психология и право
سال: 2019
ISSN: 2222-5196
DOI: 10.17759/psylaw.2019090210