What shall I do? Similarities and differences in moral judgements between Austrian and Mongolian students

Abstract

Cross-cultural research in moral judgements (e.g., whether to sacrifice one person to save several others) often focuses on differences regarding the instrumentality of harm, i.e., whether the death of one person is an instrument to save several others (instrumental) or is an incidental side-effect (incidental). Less cross-cultural research exists on differences regarding one’s own involvement, i.e., whether one’s own life or only the life of others is at risk. The present study investigated the influence of both factors on moral judgements in a European (Austrian) and an Asian (Mongolian) culture. Austrians and Mongolians read moral dilemmas and chose whether (or not) they would carry out an action that sacrifices one but saves several others. Afterwards, they rated the moral acceptability of that action. Both cultures chose utilitarian actions (sacrificing one to save others) less often in instrumental than in incidental dilemmas. Thus, instrumental harm is universally regarded as worse than incidental harm. In instrumental dilemmas, Mongolians chose more utilitarian actions than Austrians, indicating that Mongolians more likely act in favour of group welfare. In instrumental dilemmas, Austrians chose more utilitarian actions when their own life was at risk than when only the life of others was at risk. In incidental dilemmas, the opposite was observed for Mongolians. Thus, Austrians more likely act in favour of self-interest, whereas Mongolians perceive it as more unvirtuous to harm others to save oneself. Results on moral acceptability ratings and decision times further support those cultural differences. Thus, culture may convey certain moral decisions.

Out-group/in-group personal moral dilemmas in the Kogi worldview

“…Indeed, the analysis of Trolleyology, whether in the Trolley problem or the Footbridge scenario, has involved studies as diverse as the teaching of both the scenarios and the ethical content derived from the dilemmas (Kahane, 2013, how it has been theorized by the same person throughout his career (Graham, 2017), or variations of the dilemma for a specific discipline (Andrade, 2019), a theorization on the relationship between the Trolley dilemma and personal moral dilemmas (Baumann, 2022), and even a proposal of a relationship between the Trolley and the double effect doctrine (Di Nucci, 2013 and. Similarly, the effect of a second language in solving the Trolley dilemma has been studied (Geipel et al, 2015;Andrade, 2021& 2022& Maftei et al, 2022, as well as cultural comparisons aimed at establishing conditions of universality in the judgment on the proposed dilemmas (Mikhail, 2007;Mikhail, 2009;Bago et al, 2022).Additionally, cultural comparisons have been studied that show diversity in moral judgments in the solution of the dilemma (Bart et al, 2024;Gold et al, 2015, and finally (without the aforementioned exhausting study) adaptations of the dilemma for machines (Awad et al, 2018).…”