A Double Causal Contrast Theory of Moral Intuitions in Trolley Dilemmas
نویسنده
چکیده
In trolley dilemmas a train is about to kill several victims who could be saved if instead a different victim is harmed. A number of theories have been proposed which assume that permissibility judgments in these harm-based moral dilemmas are mediated by an analysis of the underlying causal structure. For example, it has been postulated that it is permissible to harm people as a side effect but not as a means. We have developed a different causal theory which claims that moral judgments are influenced by two contrasts, the global contrast between the number of victims in the presence and absence of the act, and an additional local contrast that compares the fates of the morally relevant target (i.e., threats, victims) of the proposed intervention in the presence versus absence of the act. This double causal contrast theory explains intuitions in various types of trolley dilemmas better than its competitors.
منابع مشابه
Transfer effects between moral dilemmas: a causal model theory.
Evaluations of analogous situations are an important source for our moral intuitions. A puzzling recent set of findings in experiments exploring transfer effects between intuitions about moral dilemmas has demonstrated a striking asymmetry. Transfer often occurred with a specific ordering of moral dilemmas, but not when the sequence was reversed. In this article we present a new theory of trans...
متن کاملWhen killing the heavy man seems right. Making people utilitarian by simply adding options to moral dilemmas
Trolley dilemmas are widely used to elicit moral intuitions. Most people do not think it would be morally right to push a heavy man from a bridge, thereby killing him, in order to avoid the death of several other people. Here we empirically tested a prediction by Unger (1996) who claims that adding more options to this scenario would shift people’s intuition from the normally preferred option o...
متن کاملPredicting moral judgments from causal judgments∗
Several factors have been put forward to explain the variability of moral judgments for superficially analogous moral dilemmas, in particular in the paradigm of trolley cases. In this paper we elaborate on Mikhail’s view that (i) causal analysis is at the core of moral judgments and that (ii) causal judgments can be quantified by linguistic methods. According to this model, our moral judgments ...
متن کاملSociety for Personality and Social Psychology Association for Research in Personality European Association of Social Psychology Society of Experimental and Social Psychology
Moral dilemmas—like the ‘‘trolley problem’’ or real-world examples like capital punishment—result from a conflict between consequentialist and deontological intuitions (i.e., whether ends justify means). The authors contend that people often resolve such moral conflict by aligning factual beliefs about consequences of acts with evaluations of the act’s inherent morality (i.e., morality independ...
متن کاملThe rat-a-gorical imperative: Moral intuition and the limits of affective learning.
Decades of psychological research have demonstrated that intuitive judgments are often unreliable, thanks to their inflexible reliance on limited information (Kahneman, 2003, 2011). Research on the computational underpinnings of learning, however, indicates that intuitions may be acquired by sophisticated learning mechanisms that are highly sensitive and integrative. With this in mind, Railton ...
متن کامل