Scalar consequentialism the right way

Sinhababu, Neil

doi:10.1007/s11098-017-0998-y

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, the label ‘effective altruism’. Nonetheless, some notions of effective altruism seem to align with the strict consequentialist duty that seeks maximal improvement while other forms of effective altruism—like the one in this paper—align better with the scalar consequentialism that seeks net improvement ( MacAskill, 2016 ; Norcross, 2006 ; Sinhababu, 2018 ). Of course, the history of ideas is long and diverse enough to find thinkers who do not know about or identify as effective altruists but will endorse this statement.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 74%

Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

Byrd

Białek

2021

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to crises, people sometimes prioritize fewer specific identifiable victims over many unspecified statistical victims. How other factors can explain this bias remains unclear. So two experiments investigated how complying with public health recommendations during the COVID19 pandemic depended on victim portrayal, reflection, and philosophical beliefs (Total N = 998). Only one experiment found that messaging about individual victims increased compliance compared to messaging about statistical victims-i.e., "flatten the curve" graphsan effect that was undetected after controlling for other factors. However, messaging about flu (vs. COVID19) indirectly reduced compliance by reducing perceived threat of the pandemic.Nevertheless, moral beliefs predicted compliance better than messaging and reflection in both experiments. The second experiment's additional measures revealed that religiosity, political preferences, and beliefs about science also predicted compliance. This suggests that flouting public health recommendations may be less about ineffective messaging or reasoning than philosophical differences.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 74%

Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

Byrd

Białek

2021

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a reviewer notices, however, some do not demand that we maximize aggregate well-being. Thus, satisficing utilitarians hold that an act is right if and only if it produces a sufficient amount of well-being (Slote, 1984), and scalar utilitarians merely hold that an act is good to the extent that it produces well-being (Norcross, 2006;Sinhababu, 2018). Following the standard practice in moral psychology, this paper focuses on the classical, maximizing version of utilitarianism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED: Beyond moral dilemmas: The role of reasoning in five categories of utilitarian judgment

Jaquet

Cova

2021

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Jaquet¹,

Cova²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Scalar consequentialism the right way

Cited by 20 publications

References 30 publications

Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

RETRACTED: Beyond moral dilemmas: The role of reasoning in five categories of utilitarian judgment

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About