为救五人而杀一人公平吗?公正世界的信念如何影响牺牲道德的决策。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Paul Conway, Rael J Dawtry, Jason Lam, Ana I Gheorghiu
{"title":"为救五人而杀一人公平吗?公正世界的信念如何影响牺牲道德的决策。","authors":"Paul Conway, Rael J Dawtry, Jason Lam, Ana I Gheorghiu","doi":"10.1177/01461672241287815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sacrificing a target to save a group violates deontological ethics against harm but upholds utilitarian ethics to maximize outcomes. Although theorists examine many factors that influence dilemma decisions, we examined justice concerns: We manipulated the moral character of sacrificial targets, then measured participants' dilemma responses and just world beliefs. Across four studies (<i>N</i>=1116), participants considering guilty versus innocent targets scored lower on harm-rejection (deontological) responding, but not outcome-maximizing (utilitarian) responding assessed via process dissociation. Just world beliefs (both personal and general) predicted lower utilitarian and somewhat lower deontological responding, but these effects disappeared when accounting for shared variance with psychopathy. Results suggest that dilemma decisions partly reflect the moral status of sacrificial targets and concerns about the fairness implications of sacrificing innocent targets to save innocent groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is It Fair to Kill One to Save Five? How Just World Beliefs Shape Sacrificial Moral Decision-making.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Conway, Rael J Dawtry, Jason Lam, Ana I Gheorghiu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01461672241287815\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Sacrificing a target to save a group violates deontological ethics against harm but upholds utilitarian ethics to maximize outcomes. Although theorists examine many factors that influence dilemma decisions, we examined justice concerns: We manipulated the moral character of sacrificial targets, then measured participants' dilemma responses and just world beliefs. Across four studies (<i>N</i>=1116), participants considering guilty versus innocent targets scored lower on harm-rejection (deontological) responding, but not outcome-maximizing (utilitarian) responding assessed via process dissociation. Just world beliefs (both personal and general) predicted lower utilitarian and somewhat lower deontological responding, but these effects disappeared when accounting for shared variance with psychopathy. Results suggest that dilemma decisions partly reflect the moral status of sacrificial targets and concerns about the fairness implications of sacrificing innocent targets to save innocent groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241287815\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241287815","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

牺牲一个目标来拯救一个群体违反了反对伤害的道义伦理,但却坚持了追求结果最大化的功利伦理。尽管理论家们研究了许多影响两难决定的因素,但我们研究的是正义问题:我们操纵了牺牲目标的道德品质,然后测量了参与者的两难反应和正义世界信念。在四项研究中(N=1116),考虑有罪目标和无辜目标的参与者在伤害拒绝(去道德主义)反应上得分较低,但在通过过程分离评估的结果最大化(功利主义)反应上得分较低。公正的世界信念(包括个人信念和一般信念)预示着较低的功利性反应和较低的去义务性反应,但当考虑到与心理变态的共同差异时,这些效应消失了。研究结果表明,两难选择部分反映了牺牲目标的道德地位,以及为拯救无辜群体而牺牲无辜目标对公平性的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is It Fair to Kill One to Save Five? How Just World Beliefs Shape Sacrificial Moral Decision-making.

Sacrificing a target to save a group violates deontological ethics against harm but upholds utilitarian ethics to maximize outcomes. Although theorists examine many factors that influence dilemma decisions, we examined justice concerns: We manipulated the moral character of sacrificial targets, then measured participants' dilemma responses and just world beliefs. Across four studies (N=1116), participants considering guilty versus innocent targets scored lower on harm-rejection (deontological) responding, but not outcome-maximizing (utilitarian) responding assessed via process dissociation. Just world beliefs (both personal and general) predicted lower utilitarian and somewhat lower deontological responding, but these effects disappeared when accounting for shared variance with psychopathy. Results suggest that dilemma decisions partly reflect the moral status of sacrificial targets and concerns about the fairness implications of sacrificing innocent targets to save innocent groups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信