Abstract
Making morally sensitive decisions and evaluations pervade many human everyday activities. Philosophers, economists, psychologists and behavioural scientists researching such decision-making typically explore the principles, processes and predictors that constitute human moral decision-making. Crucially, very little research has explored the theoretical and methodological development (supported by empirical evidence) of utilitarian theories of moral decision-making. Accordingly, in this critical review article, we invite the reader on a moral journey from Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism to the veil of ignorance reasoning, via a recent theoretical proposal emphasising utilitarian moral behaviour—perspective-taking accessibility (PT accessibility). PT accessibility research revealed that providing participants with access to all situational perspectives in moral scenarios, eliminates (previously reported in the literature) inconsistency between their moral judgements and choices. Moreover, in contrast to any previous theoretical and methodological accounts, moral scenarios/tasks with full PT accessibility provide the participants with unbiased even odds (neither risk averse nor risk seeking) and impartiality. We conclude that the proposed by Martin et al. PT Accessibility (a new type of veil of ignorance with even odds that do not trigger self-interest, risk related preferences or decision biases) is necessary in order to measure humans’ prosocial utilitarian behaviour and promote its societal benefits.
Highlights
If it is known that the 1 man on the track is an accomplished biochemist on the verge of discovering the cure for a deadly disease a utilitarian should opt to save the 1 biochemist over the 5 non-biochemists who will not go on to bring about such utilitarian consequences
This example demonstrates another important distinction between utilitarianism and deontology; whilst a deontologist would not change their choice in light of the contextual information, a utilitarian decision maker would always maximise the utility given the available information
Argued that traditional moral dilemmas based on Thomson’s [45] trolley paradigm offer participants limited accessibility to dilemmas information and task, rendering the scenarios cognitively challenging. In their version of the trolley and footbridge dilemmas, Kusev et al [47] have found that enhanced accessibility to dilemma information and task, they are more likely to weigh their choices in a manner that is consistent with utilitarian ethics
Summary
In the opening sentences of the Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham describes two sensations, pleasure and pain, and points to their central role in guiding human moral behaviour [1]. Bentham [1] intended pleasure to be maximised and pain to be minimised where possible, and suggested that pleasure can be measured in terms of utility, and pain measured in terms of disutility Bentham coined this moral doctrine The Greatest Happiness Principle (hereafter, Utilitarianism). Since Bentham’s utilitarianism was originally a proposal for legislative purposes, he proposed that those people with the authority to make a decision should behave as impartial spectators (i.e., observant bystanders) This differs once again from egoistic and altruistic consequentialism, since egoistic decisions are intended to directly benefit the decision-maker, and altruistic decisions can in some cases cause the decision-maker harm [7]. Mill argued that higher pleasures were more worthwhile pursuing, if a person is faced with a choice between experiencing the sensation of a lower or higher pleasure
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
