Intuitive Probabilities and the Limitation of Moral Imagination

Abstract

There is a vast literature that seeks to uncover features underlying moral judgment by eliciting reactions to hypothetical scenarios such as trolley problems. These thought experiments assume that participants accept the outcomes stipulated in the scenarios. Across seven studies (N = 968), we demonstrate that intuition overrides stipulated outcomes even when participants are explicitly told that an action will result in a particular outcome. Participants instead substitute their own estimates of the probability of outcomes for stipulated outcomes, and these probability estimates in turn influence moral judgments. Our findings demonstrate that intuitive likelihoods are one critical factor in moral judgment, one that is not suspended even in moral dilemmas that explicitly stipulate outcomes. Features thought to underlie moral reasoning, such as intention, may operate, in part, by affecting the intuitive likelihood of outcomes, and, problematically, moral differences between scenarios may be confounded with non-moral intuitive probabilities.

Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study

“…First, the way individuals form a moral judgement depends upon the "intuitive moral theory" they hold and is thus affected by factors that are not built into a given scenario. [28] Second, participants may accept some but not all of the claims made in a scenario regarding the protagonists' behavior, the outcomes of their actions and the likelihoods that certain situations may occur. [28] We thus paid attention to the way participants challenged or extended specific elements of our scenario (e.g., by adding new actors, alternative solutions).…”

“…[28] Second, participants may accept some but not all of the claims made in a scenario regarding the protagonists' behavior, the outcomes of their actions and the likelihoods that certain situations may occur. [28] We thus paid attention to the way participants challenged or extended specific elements of our scenario (e.g., by adding new actors, alternative solutions). [4] We first coded all the empirical material to identify the scenario elements that were being commented upon (e.g., genetic counselors' role, employer's responsibilities, Nathan's dilemma).…”

“…Research on scenario-based methods, which spans many disciplinary fields, ranging from product design to moral reasoning [11,28,59], suggests that such methods could support the capacity building processes called for in anticipatory governance. Scenarios are typically created by experts to explore, challenge and refine prototypes, models or policy options.…”

“…[22][23][24] Hence, the goal of this paper is to provide methodological insights into the way that scenario-based methods can stimulate the moral imagination of the publics, that is, their ability to creatively and empathetically envision problems as well as potential solutions to sociotechnical issues. [1,[25][26][27][28] Section 1 introduces the theoretical background to our study. Section 2 describes our qualitative study design, which included videos and scenarios to support face-to-face and online public deliberations on fictional interventions for genetically at-risk individuals.…”

Liability, culpability, and luck

“… See Khoury and Matheson (2018) for an appealing argument that blameworthiness can decrease depending on what one does.27 In addition, as a contingent matter, almost all of us are culpable for less serious transgressions, and given that, it seems that one would not be in a position to assume that someone else in the situation was more seriously culpable, or culpable for more than oneself or another potential victim.28 SeeRyazanov et al (2018) for the difficulty in ensuring that people accept the stipulations in thought experiments, especially if they appear unrealistic.…”