Moral Judgment and Deontology: Empirical Developments

Abstract

Abstract:A traditional idea has it that moral judgment involves more than calculating the consequences of actions; it also requires an assessment of the agent's intentions, the act's nature, and whether the agent uses another person as a means to her ends. I survey experimental developments suggesting that ordinary people often tacitly reason in terms of such deontological rules. It's now unclear whether we should posit a traditional form of the Doctrine of Double Effect. However, further research suggests that a range of non-consequentialist factors influence moral judgment, including: intentions, commissions, personal harm, and agent-centered commitments. Many, if not all, such factors appear to affect how involved the agent is in bringing about an outcome.

The means/side-effect distinction in moral cognition: A meta-analysis

“…First, some of these studies appear to have confounds, conjoining harming as a means with other factors relevant to moral cognition, including contact, commission, battery, and personal force (Greene et al 2009;May 2014;Mikhail 2014). Consider, for example, what is arguably the most famous pair of cases in this literature: Switch and Footbridge.…”

“…So, even if the differences in intuitions are statistically significant, it's unclear whether the Means Principle has a powerful impact on moral cognition (cf. May 2014;Cushman 2016).…”

Moral Reasoning and Emotion

“…Further studies and meta-analyses confirm that a variety of moral responses are reliably influenced, even if only slightly, by these factors across various cultures (see e.g. Hauser et al 2007;May 2014b;Feltz & May 2017).…”

Pragmatism-Beyond Epistemology: An Ethical Approach to Systems Decision Process

“…As May (2014) points out deontological ethics are not concerned with the consequences of taking action in accordance with set rules, good and bad are only referent to following the rules. Actions that have good consequences are bad if those actions violate a rule; so, appropriating private property is generally considered to be morally wrong even though the property that is appropriated is food that is used to feed starving children.…”