Beyond Moral Dilemmas: The Role of Reasoning in Five Categories of Utilitarian Judgment

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the study of moral reasoning has been heavily influenced by Joshua Greene’s dual-process model of moral judgment, according to which deontological judgments are typically supported by intuitive, automatic processes while utilitarian judgments are typically supported by reflective, conscious processes. However, most of the evidence gathered in support of this model comes from the study of people’s judgments about sacrificial dilemmas, such as Trolley Problems. To which extent does this model generalize to other debates in which deontological and utilitarian judgments conflict, such as the existence of harmless moral violations, the difference between actions and omissions, the extent of our duty to help others, and the good justification for punishment? To find out, we conducted a series of five studies on the role of reflection in these kinds of moral conundrums. In Study 1, participants were asked to answer under cognitive load. In Study 2, participants had to answer under a strict time constraint. In Studies 3 to 5, we sought to promote reflection through exposure to counter-intuitive reasoning problems or direct instruction. Overall, our results offer strong support to the extension of Greene’s dual-process model to moral debates on the existence of harmless violations and partial support to its extension to moral debates on the extent of our duty to help others.

“Quick and dirty”: Intuitive cognitive style predicts trust in Didier Raoult and his hydroxychloroquine-based treatment against COVID-19

“…Relationships between Cognitive style, Trust in Raoult and other beliefs. We found a positive correlation between intuitive cognitive style and belief in conspiracy theories, betimes (Jaquet & Cova, 2020). However, later analyses in this other study revealed that taking longer to fill the questionnaire did not lead participants to perform better on the Belief Bias task.…”

Measuring Impartial Beneficence: A Kantian Perspective on the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale

“…Methodological style influences the content of a normative framework. Depending on which model of ethical reasoning you adopt, your commitment to impartiality can change significantly (Jaquet and Cova 2021). Foundational theorizing tends to press the demand for the impartial standpoint most firmly against everyday ethical beliefs, downplaying the significance of the personal in moral thought (Williams 2006), whereas intuitional theorizing limits what we may do in pursuit of the impartial good.…”

“…Psychological research has focused too much on the sacrificial dilemmas paradigm which essentially asks the negative question of how willing we are to kill others. However, recent research is starting to look at positive utilitarian demands (Kahane et al 2018;Jaquet and Cova 2021). As Mill pointed out, utilitarianism has a natural affinity with empathic concern for sentient beings.…”

Retrakcje w filozofii na podstawie bazy Retraction Watch w świetle wytycznych Komisji Etyki Publikacji

“…about the alleged toxicity of vaccines(Decety, Cowell, Lee et al (2015)). 28 Jaquet, Cova (2021).29 Adler (2017);Jaquet, Cova (2021);.…”