17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Switching Away from Utilitarianism: The Limited Role of Utility Calculations in Moral Judgment

      research-article
        * ,
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Our moral motivations might include a drive towards maximizing overall welfare, consistent with an ethical theory called “utilitarianism.” However, people show non-utilitarian judgments in domains as diverse as healthcare decisions, income distributions, and penal laws. Rather than these being deviations from a fundamentally utilitarian psychology, we suggest that our moral judgments are generally non-utilitarian, even for cases that are typically seen as prototypically utilitarian. We show two separate deviations from utilitarianism in such cases: people do not think maximizing welfare is required (they think it is merely acceptable, in some circumstances), and people do not think that equal welfare tradeoffs are even acceptable. We end by discussing how utilitarian reasoning might play a restricted role within a non-utilitarian moral psychology.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Universal moral grammar: theory, evidence and the future.

          Scientists from various disciplines have begun to focus attention on the psychology and biology of human morality. One research program that has recently gained attention is universal moral grammar (UMG). UMG seeks to describe the nature and origin of moral knowledge by using concepts and models similar to those used in Chomsky's program in linguistics. This approach is thought to provide a fruitful perspective from which to investigate moral competence from computational, ontogenetic, behavioral, physiological and phylogenetic perspectives. In this article, I outline a framework for UMG and describe some of the evidence that supports it. I also propose a novel computational analysis of moral intuitions and argue that future research on this topic should draw more directly on legal theory.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Egalitarian motives in humans.

            Participants in laboratory games are often willing to alter others' incomes at a cost to themselves, and this behaviour has the effect of promoting cooperation. What motivates this action is unclear: punishment and reward aimed at promoting cooperation cannot be distinguished from attempts to produce equality. To understand costly taking and costly giving, we create an experimental game that isolates egalitarian motives. The results show that subjects reduce and augment others' incomes, at a personal cost, even when there is no cooperative behaviour to be reinforced. Furthermore, the size and frequency of income alterations are strongly influenced by inequality. Emotions towards top earners become increasingly negative as inequality increases, and those who express these emotions spend more to reduce above-average earners' incomes and to increase below-average earners' incomes. The results suggest that egalitarian motives affect income-altering behaviours, and may therefore be an important factor underlying the evolution of strong reciprocity and, hence, cooperation in humans.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A mutualistic approach to morality: the evolution of fairness by partner choice.

              What makes humans moral beings? This question can be understood either as a proximate “how” question or as an ultimate “why” question. The “how” question is about the mental and social mechanisms that produce moral judgments and interactions, and has been investigated by psychologists and social scientists. The “why” question is about the fitness consequences that explain why humans have morality, and has been discussed by evolutionary biologists in the context of the evolution of cooperation. Our goal here is to contribute to a fruitful articulation of such proximate and ultimate explanations of human morality. We develop an approach to morality as an adaptation to an environment in which individuals were in competition to be chosen and recruited in mutually advantageous cooperative interactions. In this environment, the best strategy is to treat others with impartiality and to share the costs and benefits of cooperation equally. Those who offer less than others will be left out of cooperation; conversely, those who offer more will be exploited by their partners. In line with this mutualistic approach, the study of a range of economic games involving property rights, collective actions, mutual help and punishment shows that participants’ distributions aim at sharing the costs and benefits of interactions in an impartial way. In particular, the distribution of resources is influenced by effort and talent, and the perception of each participant’s rights on the resources to be distributed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                9 August 2016
                2016
                : 11
                : 8
                : e0160084
                Affiliations
                [001]Institut Jean-Nicod CNRS UMR 8129, Institut d’Etude de la Cognition, Ecole Normale Supérieure – PSL Research University, Paris, France
                Brain and Spine Institute (ICM), FRANCE
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                • Conceived and designed the experiments: MS NB.

                • Performed the experiments: MS.

                • Analyzed the data: MS.

                • Wrote the paper: MS NB.

                [¤]

                Current address: Yale Psychology Department, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1277-8608
                Article
                PONE-D-15-23625
                10.1371/journal.pone.0160084
                4978433
                27505424
                805ae6d3-3338-45a0-a7ae-86c1aafb8089
                © 2016 Sheskin, Baumard

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 12 June 2015
                : 13 July 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 0, Pages: 14
                Funding
                This work was supported by ANR-11-0001-02 PSL* and ANR-10-LABX-0087 funding to the institution. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Reasoning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Reasoning
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Reasoning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Happiness
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Happiness
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Attitudes (Psychology)
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Attitudes (Psychology)
                Social Sciences
                Law and Legal Sciences
                Criminal Justice System
                Criminal Punishment
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognition
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Behavior
                Motivation
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Motivation
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Motivation
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Motivation
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Behavior
                Custom metadata
                All data are within the paper. The data consist of 400 dichotomous responses (50 responses for each of 8 questions), and the percent of participants choosing each response (which can be directly translated back into raw numbers) are reported.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article