For the greater goods? Ownership rights and utilitarian moral judgment.
نویسندگان
چکیده
People often judge it unacceptable to directly harm a person, even when this is necessary to produce an overall positive outcome, such as saving five other lives. We demonstrate that similar judgments arise when people consider damage to owned objects. In two experiments, participants considered dilemmas where saving five inanimate objects required destroying one. Participants judged this unacceptable when it required violating another's ownership rights, but not otherwise. They also judged that sacrificing another's object was less acceptable as a means than as a side-effect; judgments did not depend on whether property damage involved personal force. These findings inform theories of moral decision-making. They show that utilitarian judgment can be decreased without physical harm to persons, and without personal force. The findings also show that the distinction between means and side-effects influences the acceptability of damaging objects, and that ownership impacts utilitarian moral judgment.
منابع مشابه
Model of Utilitarian Ethical Judgment in the Relationship with the Dark Triad: Mediating role of Honesty/Humility and Empathy
Background: For years, philosophers and psychologists seek to explain why people behave in ethical or unethical practices. This study was aimed to determine the causal model fitness of relationship between the dark triad and utilitarian moral judgment, with the mediating role of honesty/humility and empathy. Method: This study was a descriptive-correlation research. Statistical society of this...
متن کاملUtilitarian Moral Judgment Exclusively Coheres with Inference from Is to Ought
Faced with moral choice, people either judge according to pre-existing obligations (deontological judgment), or by taking into account the consequences of their actions (utilitarian judgment). We propose that the latter coheres with a more general cognitive mechanism - deontic introduction, the tendency to infer normative ('deontic') conclusions from descriptive premises (is-ought inference). P...
متن کاملAre !counter-intuitive" deontological judgments
A substantial body of evidence indicates that utilitarian judgments (favoring the greater good) made in response to difficult moral dilemmas are preferentially supported by controlled, reflective processes, whereas deontological judgments (favoring rights/duties) in such cases are preferentially supported by automatic, intuitive processes. A recent neuroimaging study by Kahane et al. challenges...
متن کاملThe Causal Role of Right Frontopolar Cortex in Moral Judgment, Negative Emotion Induction, and Executive Control
Introduction: Converging evidence suggests that both emotional and cognitive processes are critically involved in moral judgment, and may be mediated by discrete parts of the prefrontal cortex. The current study aimed at investigating the mediatory effect of right Frontopolar Cortex (rFPC) on the way that emotions affect moral judgments. Methods: Six adult patients affected by rFPC and 10 hea...
متن کاملThe neural basis of intuitive and counterintuitive moral judgment
Neuroimaging studies on moral decision-making have thus far largely focused on differences between moral judgments with opposing utilitarian (well-being maximizing) and deontological (duty-based) content. However, these studies have investigated moral dilemmas involving extreme situations, and did not control for two distinct dimensions of moral judgment: whether or not it is intuitive (immedia...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Cognition
دوره 133 1 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2014