Thursday, July 14, 2022
HomePhilosophyEthical Dilemmas – The Brains Weblog

Ethical Dilemmas – The Brains Weblog

Welcome to the Brains Weblog’s Symposium collection on the Cognitive Science of Philosophy. The goal of the collection is to look at using various strategies to generate philosophical perception. Every symposium is comprised of two elements. Within the goal publish, a practitioner describes their use of the tactic underneath dialogue and explains why they discover it philosophically fruitful. A commentator then responds to the goal publish and discusses the strengths and limitations of the tactic.

On this symposium, Paul Conway (College of Portsmouth) argues that, though ethical dilemmas don’t inform us whether or not laypeople are deontologists or utilitarians, they can be used to review the psychological processes underlying ethical judgment. Man Kahane (College of Oxford) supplies commentary, suggesting that the ethical dilemmas we care about go far past trolley-style situations.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

What Do Ethical Dilemmas Inform Us?

Paul Conway

Think about you may kill a child to avoid wasting a village or inject folks with a vaccine you recognize will hurt a couple of folks however save many extra lives. Think about a self-driving automobile may swerve to kill one pedestrian to forestall it from hitting a number of extra. Suppose as a physician in an overburdened healthcare system you’ll be able to flip away a difficult affected person to dedicate your restricted time and sources to saving a number of others. These are examples of sacrificial dilemmas, cousins to the well-known trolley dilemma the place redirecting a trolley to kill one particular person will save 5 lives. 

Determine 1: Drawing of the unique trolley dilemma. (Picture by way of McGeddon, CC 4.0 license.)

Philosophers, scientists, and most people share a fascination with such dilemmas, as they function not solely in philosophical writing and scientific analysis, but additionally standard tradition, together with The Darkish Knight, The Good Place, M*A*S*H*, and Sophie’s Selection. Thanos additionally contemplated a sacrificial dilemma–kill half the inhabitants to create a greater world–and there are reams of humorous dilemma memes on-line. So, dilemmas have struck a chord inside and past the academy.

Determine 2: Certainly one of my favourites. (From KnowYourMeme)

But, questions come up as to what dilemmas truly inform us. Educational work on dilemmas originated with Philippa Foot (1967), who used dilemmas as thought experiment instinct pumps to argue for considerably arcane phenomena (e.g., the doctrine of double impact, the argument that hurt to avoid wasting others is permissible as a aspect impact however not focal objective). Nevertheless, subsequent theorists started deciphering sacrificial dilemmas when it comes to utilitarian ethics targeted on outcomes and deontological ethics targeted on rights and duties. Sacrificing a person violates most interpretations of (for instance) Kant’s (1959/1785) categorical crucial by treating that particular person as a method to an finish/with out dignity. But, saving extra folks maximizes outcomes, consistent with most interpretations of utilitarian or consequentialist ethics, as described by Bentham (1843), Mill (1998/1861), and Singer (1980), amongst others. 

Some theorists have taken dilemma responses as a referendum on philosophical positions. On the floor, this will appear affordable–in spite of everything, philosophers who determine as consequentialist are likely to endorse sacrificial hurt extra typically than those that determine as deontologists or advantage ethicists. For instance, Fiery Cushman & Eric Schwitzgebel discovered this sample when assessing philosophical leanings and dilemma responses of 273 members holding an M.A. or Ph.D. in philosophy, printed in Conway and colleagues (2018). Additionally, Nick Byrd discovered that endorsement of consequentialist (over deontological ethics) correlated with selecting to tug the swap on the trolley drawback in two totally different research that recruited philosophers (2022).

Determine 3: Philosophers who determine as consequentialist (much like utilitarianism) endorse sacrificial hurt extra typically than these figuring out as deontologists or advantage ethicists (Conway et al., 2018).

If utilitarian philosophers endorse utilitarian sacrifice, then certainly different folks endorsing utilitarian sacrifice should endorse utilitarian philosophy, the reasoning goes. Presumably, individuals who reject sacrificial hurt should endorse deontological philosophy. In any case, some researchers argue persons are fairly constant when making such judgments (e.g., Helzer et al., 2017).

Nevertheless, this can be a non sequitur. It assumes that philosophers and laypeople endorse judgments for a similar causes and that the one causes to endorse or reject sacrificial hurt replicate summary philosophical rules. It additionally inappropriately reverses the inference: sacrificial judgments are utilitarian as a result of they align with utilitarian philosophy; that doesn’t imply that each one judgments described as utilitarian replicate solely adherence to that philosophy.

One want solely take probably the most cursory look on the psychological literature on decision-making to notice that many selections human beings make don’t replicate summary adherence to rules (e.g., Kahneman, 2011). As a substitute, choices typically replicate a posh mixture of processes.

For an analogy, contemplate an individual selecting between shopping for a home or renting an house. The choice they arrive at may replicate many components, together with calculations about dimension and value and placement of every choice, but additionally intuitive emotions about how a lot they like every choice—importantly, how a lot they like every choice relative to 1 one other (some extent we are going to return to).

Positive, some folks may constantly choose homes and different constantly choose residences, however many individuals may begin off residing in an house and in a while transfer to a home when their household grows. Does anybody suppose that such choices replicate inflexible adherence to an summary precept comparable to ‘apartmentness’? Likewise, some well-known folks constantly reside in homes (Martha Stewart?) and others in residences (Seinfeld?)—does that imply that everybody selecting one or the opposite makes that selection for a similar purpose (e.g., they’re the star of a success TV present set in New York)? Furthermore, a home continues to be a home irrespective of the rationale somebody selects it, simply as a sacrificial determination that maximises outcomes is per utilitarian philosophy even when somebody chooses it for lower than noble causes.

The issues deciphering dilemmas deepened when researchers stared noting the strong tendency for delinquent character traits, comparable to psychopathy, to foretell acceptance of sacrificial hurt (e.g., Bartels & Pizarro, 2011). Do such findings counsel that psychopaths genuinely care concerning the well-being of the most individuals, and will in reality be ethical paragons? Or do such findings counsel that sacrificial dilemmas fail to measure the issues philosophers care about in spite of everything (see Kahane et al., 2015)?  

Determine 4: Delinquent character traits like psychopathy predict elevated acceptance of sacrificial hurt—does this suggest that psychopaths are utilitarian? (Bartels & Pizarro, 2011). Determine used with permission from the copyright holder of submitted manuscript.

If dilemma responses needs to be handled as a referendum on adherence to summary philosophical rules, then clearly the sacrificial dilemma paradigm is damaged.

Nevertheless, there may be one other approach to conceptualize dilemma responses: from a psychological perspective. Returning to the purpose concerning the function of psychological mechanisms concerned in decision-making, comparable to house searching, one can ask the query, What psychological mechanisms give rise to acceptance or rejection of sacrificial hurt? 

Be aware this query shifts away from the query of endorsement of summary philosophy and focuses as a substitute on understanding judgments. In different phrases, as a substitute of making an attempt to grasp summary ‘apartmentness,’ researchers ought to ask, Why did this particular person choose this house over that home

This attitude was first popularized by a Science paper printed by Greene and colleagues on the flip of the millennium. They gave dilemmas to members in an fMRI scanner, and argued for a twin course of mannequin of dilemma decision-making: intuitive, emotional reactions to inflicting hurt inspire choices to reject sacrificial hurt, whereas logical cognitive processing about outcomes inspire choices to simply accept sacrificial hurt (thereby maximizing outcomes).

In line with this argument, folks larger in emotional processing, comparable to empathic concern, aversion to inflicting hurt, and agreeableness, are likely to reject sacrificial hurt (e.g., Reynolds & Conway, 2018), whereas folks larger in logical deliberation, comparable to cognitive reflection take a look at efficiency, have a tendency to simply accept sacrificial hurt (e.g., Patil et al., 2021; Byrd & Conway, 2019). There’s loads extra proof, a few of it a bit blended, however general, the image from a whole lot of research roughly aligns with this fundamental cognitive-emotional distinction, although proof suggests roles for different essential processes as properly.

Importantly, the twin course of mannequin suggests there isn’t any one-to-one match between judgment and course of. As a substitute, a given judgment folks arrive at displays the relative energy of those processes. Simply as somebody who sometimes may select an house could get swayed by a very good home, sacrificial judgments theoretically replicate the diploma to which emotional aversion to hurt competes with deliberation about outcomes. Will increase or reductions of both course of ought to have predictable impacts on sacrificial judgments.

Due to this fact, it makes excellent sense why psychopathy and different delinquent character traits ought to predict elevated acceptance of sacrificial hurt: such traits replicate lowered emotional concern for others’ struggling, a ‘callous disregard for others’ well-being.’ Therefore, folks excessive in such traits ought to really feel low motivation to reject sacrificial hurt—even when they don’t essentially really feel explicit concern for the larger good.

This argument is corroborated by modelling approaches, comparable to course of dissociation (Conway & Gawronski, 2013) and the Penalties, Norms, Inaction (CNI) Mannequin (Gawronski et al., 2017). Fairly than analyzing responses to sacrificial dilemmas the place inflicting hurt at all times maximizes outcomes, these approaches systematically differ the outcomes of hurt—typically harming folks (arguably) fails to maximise outcomes.* As a substitute of analyzing strict choices, these approaches analyse patterns of responding: some members systematically reject sacrificial hurt no matter whether or not doing so maximizes outcomes (per deontological ethics). Different members constantly maximize outcomes, no matter whether or not doing so requires inflicting hurt (per utilitarian ethics). Some members easy refuse to take any motion for any purpose, no matter hurt or penalties (per basic inaction).

Research measuring delinquent character traits utilizing modelling approaches present an attention-grabbing sample. As predicted, psychopathy and different delinquent traits certainly predict lowered rejection of sacrificial hurt (i.e., low deontological responding)—however they don’t predict elevated utilitarian responding—fairly the other. Delinquent traits additionally predict lowered utilitarian responding (simply to a lesser diploma than lowered deontological responding, Conway et al., 2018; Luke & Gawronski, 2021).

In different phrases, folks excessive in psychopathy leap on the alternative to trigger hurt for the flimsiest purpose that provides them believable deniability—relatively than demonstrating concern for utilitarian outcomes.

In the meantime, individuals who care deeply about morality, comparable to these excessive in ethical identification (caring about being an ethical particular person, Aquino & Reed, 2002), deep ethical conviction that hurt is unsuitable (Skitka, 2010), and aversion to witnessing others endure (Miller et, al., 2014) concurrently rating excessive in each aversion to sacrificial hurt and considerations about outcomes—in different phrases, they appear to point out a real dilemma: pressure between deontological and utilitarian responding (Conway et al., 2018; Reynolds & Conway, 2018; Körner et al., 2020).

Importantly, most of those findings disappeared when common sacrificial judgments the place inflicting hurt at all times maximizes outcomes—such judgments pressure folks to finally choose one or the opposite choice, dropping the power to check any pressure between them. Some folks is likely to be extraordinarily enthusiastic about each a home and house, but finally have to decide on only one—different folks is likely to be unenthusiastic about both selection, but additionally should finally select one. What issues isn’t a lot the selection they make, however the advanced psychology behind their selection. That is price learning, even when it doesn’t replicate some summary precept.

Therefore, it could be too quickly to ‘throw the child out with the bathwater’ and abandon dilemma analysis as meaningless or uninteresting. Dilemma judgments replicate a posh mixture of psychological processes, few of which align with philosophical rules, however a lot of that are fascinating in their very own proper. Dilemmas, like different psychological decision-making analysis, present a singular window into the psychological processes folks use to resolve ethical conflicts (Cushman & Greene, 2012). Dilemmas don’t replicate adherence to philosophical rules—researchers have developed different methods to evaluate such issues (Kahane et al., 2018)—however they continue to be essential to review.

It’s because sadly, whereas the trolley dilemma itself is only hypothetical, sacrificial dilemmas happen in the true world on a regular basis. When police use pressure in service of the general public good, judges sentence harmful offenders to guard victims, when mother and father self-discipline youngsters to show them priceless classes, or professors fail college students who haven’t accomplished work to protect disciplinary requirements and guarantee {qualifications}–every of those conditions parallels sacrificial dilemmas.** As decision-makers face many advanced sacrificial situations in actual life, which regularly replicate issues of life or dying, it’s critical to grasp the psychology concerned.

Consider an administrator of a hospital overwhelmed by COVID deciding who can be sacrificed to avoid wasting others—would you like that particular person to be excessive in ethical identification, struggling between two ethical impulses, or excessive in psychopathy, largely detached both manner? The psychological processes concerned in dilemma decision-making are very important for society to review, no matter any philosophical connotations they (don’t sometimes) have.


*The CNI mannequin additionally manipulates whether or not motion harms or saves a focal goal.

**Assuming truthful and considered utility of police pressure, assuming judges make use of utilitarian relatively than punitive approaches to sentencing, assuming parental self-discipline is well-meaning and properly calibrated to instructing priceless classes, and so forth. Little question actuality is extra advanced than this, however the basic framework of dilemmas nonetheless permeates many essential choices.


* * * * * * * * * * * *

Commentary: Why Dilemmas? Which Dilemmas?

Man Kahane

We typically face ethical dilemmas: conditions the place it’s extremely onerous to know what’s the appropriate factor to do. One purpose why ethical philosophers develop elaborate moral theories like utilitarianism or deontology is with a purpose to give us principled methods to take care of such tough conditions. When philosophers argue over which moral concept or precept is true, they often contemplate what their theories would inform us to do in varied ethical dilemmas. However they typically additionally contemplate how these rules would apply in thought experiments: fastidiously designed hypothetical situations (which may be outlandish however needn’t be) that enable us to tease aside varied attainable ethical components. Thought experiments aren’t meant to be tough—in reality, if we wish to use them to check competing ethical rules, the ethical query posed by a thought experiment needs to be pretty straightforward to reply. What is difficult—what requires philosophical work—is to determine ethical rules that may make sense of our assured intuitions about varied thought experiments and real-life instances.

The well-known trolley instances had been first launched by Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson as thought experiments, not as dilemmas. Foot discovered it apparent that we should always swap a runaway prepare to a special monitor if this may result in one dying as a substitute of 5. She was making an attempt to make clear what was a extremely controversial ethical difficulty within the Nineteen Sixties (and, alas, stays controversial)—whether or not abortion is permissible—not within the ethics of sacrificing folks in railway (or for that matter, army or medical) emergencies. The so-called trolley drawback isn’t involved with whether or not it’s alright to modify the runaway prepare or, in Thomson’s variant, to push somebody off a footbridge to cease such a prepare from killing 5 (Thomson and most of the people suppose that’s clearly unsuitable), however to determine a believable ethical precept that may account for our divergent ethical intuitions about these structurally related instances.

Foot would have most likely discovered it very shocking to listen to that her unbelievable situation is now a (and even the) key manner by which psychologists examine ethical decision-making. Her thought experiment a few runaway trolley has by now been utilized in numerous ‘actual’ experiments. For instance, psychologists have a look at how folks will reply to such situations the place they’re drunk, or sleep disadvantaged, or have borderline character dysfunction, or when these situations are offered in a tough to learn font or when the folks concerned are household family members or international vacationers and even (in some research I’ve been concerned in) aren’t folks in any respect however animals! An excessive amount of attention-grabbing knowledge has been gathered on this manner however, weirdly sufficient, it’s however not but so clear what all of that may train us, not to mention why trolley situations are taken to be so central to the examine of the psychology of ethical decision-making.

There’s one reply to this query that each I and Paul Conway reject. It goes like this. A central debate in ethical philosophy is between utilitarians (who search to maximise happiness) and deontologists (who imagine in guidelines that forbid sure form of acts). Utilitarians and deontologists give opposing replies to sure trolley situations: utilitarians will at all times sacrifice some to avoid wasting the larger quantity whereas deontologists suppose some methods of saving extra lives are unsuitable. So by asking abnormal folks whether or not they would sacrifice one to avoid wasting 5 we will discover out the extent to which individuals comply with utilitarian or deontological rules. However this can be a poor rationale for doing all of these psychological experiments. To start with, as Paul factors out, the overwhelming majority of individuals don’t actually method ethical questions by making use of something resembling a concept. And though it’s true that utilitarians method these dilemmas in a particular manner, the trolley situations weren’t actually devised to distinction utilitarianism and deontology, and are only one form of (pretty peculiar) case the place utilitarianism clashes with different theories (Kahane et al., 2015; Kahane, 2015; Kahane et al., 2018). For instance, utilitarians additionally sometimes maintain that we should always ourselves make nice sacrifices to forestall hurt to distant strangers, wherever they could be (e.g. by donating most of our earnings to charities aiding folks in want in growing nations), whereas deontological theories typically see such sacrifices as at greatest non-compulsory. However, as Paul additionally agrees, willingness to push somebody else off a footbridge inform us little or nothing about somebody’s willingness to sacrifice their very own earnings, or well-being, and even life, for the sake of others (Everett & Kahane, 2020).

A greater reply, which Paul favours, is that by learning how abnormal folks method these situations, we will uncover the processes that underlie folks ethical decision-making. It’s exactly as a result of folks typically don’t make ethical choices by making use of specific rules, and since what actually drives such choices is commonly unconscious, that learning them utilizing psychological strategies (and even practical neuroimaging) is so attention-grabbing. In line with one influential concept, when folks reject sure methods of sacrificing one to avoid wasting a larger quantity (for instance, by pushing them off a footbridge), these ethical judgments are pushed by emotion (Greene et al. 2004). After they endorse such sacrifice, this may be (as within the case of psychopaths) simply because they lack unfavorable emotional response most of us should straight harming others, however it may also be as a result of folks interact their capability for effortful reasoning. That is an intriguing concept that Paul has finished a lot to assist and develop (see e.g. Conway & Gawronski, 2013). As a concept of what goes in folks’s brains once they response to trolley situations, it appears to me nonetheless incomplete. What, for instance, are folks doing precisely once they interact in effortful pondering and determine that it’s alright to sacrifice one for the larger good? We’ve already agreed they aren’t making use of some specific concept comparable to utilitarianism. Presumably in addition they don’t want a fantastic effort to calculate that 5 is bigger than 1—as if those that don’t endorse such sacrifices are arithmetically challenged! But when the cognitive effort is solely that wanted to beat a robust fast instinct or emotion towards some selection, this doesn’t inform us something very shocking. Somebody may equally must make such an effort so as, for instance, to override their fast motivation to assist folks in want and selfishly stroll away from, say, the scene of a prepare wreck (Kahane, et al. 2012; Everett & Kahane, 2020).

Maybe a extra essential query is what we actually study human ethical decision-making if, say, one form of response to trolley situations is (let’s assume) based mostly in emotion and one other based mostly in ‘purpose’. There’s one controversial reply to this additional query that Paul doesn’t say a lot about. We earlier rejected the image of abnormal folks as lay ethical philosophers who apply specific theories to deal with dilemmas. However there’s one thing to be mentioned for the reverse view: that ethical philosophers are extra much like laypeople than they appear. Philosophers do have their theories and rules, however it is likely to be argued that these finally have their supply in psychological reactions of the kind shared with the folks. Kant could enchantment to his Categorical Crucial to clarify why it’s unsuitable to push a person off a footbridge, however maybe the true purpose he thinks that is unsuitable is that he feels a robust emotional aversion to this concept. And if moral theories have their roots in such psychological reactions, maybe we will consider these theories by evaluating these roots. Particularly, utilitarianism could appear to come back off higher if its psychological supply is reasoning whereas opponent views are actually constructed on an emotional basis, or at the very least on fast intuitions which are, at greatest, dependable solely in slim contexts (see e.g. Greene, 2013). This model of argument has generated quite a lot of debate. Right here I’ll simply level again to some issues I already mentioned. If when individuals who endorse sacrificial choices ‘suppose more durable’ they’re simply overcoming some robust instinct, this leaves it totally open whether or not they ought to overcome it. Extra importantly, as we noticed, trolley situations seize only one particular implication of utilitarianism (its permissive angle to sure dangerous methods of selling the larger good). But it surely leaves it totally open how, for instance, folks arrive at judgments about self-sacrifice or about concern for the plight of distant strangers. In truth, the proof means that such judgments are pushed by totally different psychological processes.

Paul presents one other justification for specializing in trolley-style situations. We will overlook about philosophers and their theories. The actual fact is that individuals truly repeatedly face ethical dilemmas, and it’s essential to grasp the psychological processes in play once they attempt to resolve them. This appears believable sufficient. However though some psychologists (not Paul) typically use ‘ethical dilemmas’ to only imply trolley-style situation, there are very many sorts of ethical dilemmas—and as we noticed, some classical trolley situations aren’t even dilemmas, correctly talking! Ought to we hold a promise to a good friend if this may hurt a 3rd get together? Ought to we ship our kids to personal faculties that many different mother and father can’t afford? Ought to we go on that luxurious cruise as a substitute of donating all this cash to charities that save lives? It’s uncertain (or at the very least must be proven) that the psychology behind peculiar trolley instances actually tells us a lot about these very totally different ethical conditions. If we wish to perceive the psychological of ethical dilemmas we have to solid a a lot wider internet.*

I don’t suppose Paul desires to say that by learning trolley situations, we will perceive ethical dilemmas typically. He relatively says that there’s a class of ethical dilemma that individuals in reality face in sure contexts—particularly army and medical ones—which is properly price learning on the psychological degree. This appears proper, but when such instances don’t actually inform us a lot about grand philosophical disputes, nor maintain the important thing to the psychology of ethical decision-making (as many psychologists appear to imagine), and even simply to the psychology of ethical dilemmas, then do trolley actually deserve this a lot consideration? Why spend all that effort learning folks’s responses to those farfetched conditions relatively than to the quite a few different ethical dilemmas folks face? Furthermore, even when we wish to uncover the psychology of this sort of precise selection state of affairs, why herald runaway trains as a substitute of instances that truly resemble such (fairly uncommon) real-life conditions. Docs typically must make tragic decisions however a physician who actively killed a affected person to avoid wasting 5 others will merely be committing homicide. Lastly, whereas it’s going to little question be attention-grabbing to find the psychological processes and components that form choices in real-life sacrificial decisions, it might be good to know what precisely we’re alleged to do with this data. Will it, specifically, assist us make higher decisions once we face such dilemmas? However this takes us proper again to the tantalising hole between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, and to these pesky moral theories we thought we’d left behind…


* See Nguyen et al. (2020) for an interesting evaluation of 100,000 ethical dilemmas culled from the ‘Am I the Asshole’ subreddit—few of those are even remotely much like trolley situations.


* * * * * * * * * * * *



Aquino, Okay., & Reed, I. I. (2002). The self-importance of ethical identification. Journal of Character and Social Psychology83, 1423-1440.

Bartels, D. M., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Delinquent character traits predict utilitarian responses to ethical dilemmas. Cognition, 121, 154–161.

Bentham, J. (1843). The Works of Jeremy Bentham (Vol. 7). W. Tait.

Byrd, N. (2022). Nice Minds don’t Assume Alike: Philosophers’ Views Predicted by Reflection, Schooling, Character, and Different Demographic Variations. Evaluation of Philosophy and Psychology.

Byrd, N., & Conway, P. (2019). Not all who ponder depend prices: Arithmetic reflection predicts utilitarian tendencies, however logical reflection predicts each deontological and utilitarian tendencies. Cognition192, 103995.

Caviola, L., Kahane, G., Everett, J., Teperman, E., Savulescu, J., and Faber, N. (2021). Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for folks? Harming animals and people for the larger good. The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Normal, 150(5), 1008-1039.

Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in ethical decision-making: a course of dissociation method. Journal of Character and Social Psychology, 104, 216-235.

Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D., and Greene, J. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do replicate concern for the larger good: Clarification by way of course of dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241-265.

Cushman, F., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Discovering faults: How ethical dilemmas illuminate cognitive construction. Social neuroscience7(3), 269-279.

Everett, J. and Kahane, G. (2020). Switching tracks: A multi-dimensional mannequin of utilitarian psychology. Tendencies in Cognitive Sciences, 24(2), 124-134.

Foot, P. (1967). The issue of abortion and the doctrine of double impact. Oxford Evaluation, 5, 5–15.

Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2017). Penalties, norms, and generalized inaction in ethical dilemmas: The CNI mannequin of ethical decision-making. Journal of Character and Social Psychology, 113, 343-376.

Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive battle and management in ethical judgment. Neuron, 44, 389–400.

Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in ethical judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.

Greene, Joshua (2013). Ethical Tribes: Emotion, Purpose, and the Hole Between Us and Them. Penguin Press.

Helzer, E. G., Fleeson, W., Furr, R. M., Meindl, P., & Barranti, M. (2017). As soon as a utilitarian, constantly a utilitarian? Analyzing principledness in ethical judgment by way of the robustness of particular person variations. Journal of Character85, 505-517.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Considering, quick and sluggish. Macmillan.

Kant, I. (1959). Basis of the metaphysics of morals (L. W. Beck, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Authentic work printed 1785)

Kahane, G., Wiech, Okay., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu J. and Tracey, I. (2012). The neural foundation of intuitive and counterintuitive ethical judgement. Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(4), 393- 402.

Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial ethical dilemmas don’t replicate neutral concern for the larger good. Cognition134, 193-209.

Kahane, G. (2015). Facet-tracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial ethical Dilemmas inform us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social Neuroscience, 10(5), 551-560.

Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. (2018). Past sacrificial hurt: A two-dimensional mannequin of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Evaluation125(2), 131.

Körner, A., Deutsch, R., & Gawronski, B. (2020). Utilizing the CNI mannequin to analyze particular person variations in ethical dilemma judgments. Character and Social Psychology Bulletin46(9), 1392-1407.

Luke, D. M., & Gawronski, B. (2021). Psychopathy and ethical dilemma judgments: A CNI mannequin evaluation of private and perceived societal requirements. Social Cognition39, 41-58.

Mill, J. S. (1998). Utilitarianism (R. Crisp, Ed.). New York, NY: Oxford College Press. (Authentic work printed 1861)

Miller, R. M., Hannikainen, I. A., & Cushman, F. A. (2014). Unhealthy actions or unhealthy outcomes? Differentiating affective contributions to the ethical condemnation of hurt. Emotion14(3), 573.

Nguyen, T. D., Lyall, G., Tran, A., Shin. M., Carroll, N. G., Klein, C., Xie, L. (2022). Mapping subjects in 100,000 real-life ethical dilemmas. ArXiv preprint arXiv:2203.16762

Patil, I., Zucchelli, M. M., Kool, W., Campbell, S., Fornasier, F., Calò, M., … & Cushman, F. (2021). Reasoning helps utilitarian resolutions to ethical dilemmas throughout various measures. Journal of Character and Social Psychology120(2), 443.

Reynolds, C. J., & Conway, P. (2018). Not simply unhealthy actions: Affective concern for unhealthy outcomes contributes to ethical condemnation of hurt in ethical dilemmas. Emotion.

Singer, P. (1980). Utilitarianism and vegetarianism. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 325-337.

Skitka, L. J. (2010). The psychology of ethical conviction. Social and Character Psychology Compass4(4), 267-281.


Most Popular

Recent Comments