Abstract
Moral dilemmas engender conflicts between two traditions: consequentialism, which evaluates actions based on their outcomes, and deontology, which evaluates actions themselves. These strikingly resemble two distinct decision-making architectures: a model-based system that selects actions based on inferences about their consequences; and a model-free system that selects actions based on their reinforcement history. Here, I consider how these systems, along with a Pavlovian system that responds reflexively to rewards and punishments, can illuminate puzzles in moral psychology.
Highlights
Moral dilemmas engender conflicts between two traditions: consequentialism, which evaluates actions based on their outcomes, and deontology, which evaluates actions themselves
Recent work has shown that experimental manipulations can sway people’s judgments toward either consequentialism or deontology, suggesting that these perspectives have distinct neural underpinnings [1]
One influential account of these findings posits that deontological judgments stem from automatic emotional processes, whereas consequentialist judgments result from controlled cognitive processes [1]
Summary
Moral dilemmas engender conflicts between two traditions: consequentialism, which evaluates actions based on their outcomes, and deontology, which evaluates actions themselves. The model-based system generates a forward-looking decision tree representing the contingencies between actions and outcomes, and the values of
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call