Abstract
Research on morality has focused on differences in moral judgment and action. In this study, we investigated self-reported moral reasoning after a hypothetical moral dilemma was presented on paper, and moral reasoning after that very same dilemma was experienced in immersive virtual reality (IVR). We asked open-ended questions and used content analysis to determine moral reasoning in a sample of 107 participants. We found that participants referred significantly more often to abstract principles and consequences for themselves (i.e., it is against the law) after the paper-based moral dilemma compared to the IVR dilemma. In IVR participants significantly more often referred to the consequences for the people involved in the dilemma (i.e., not wanting to hurt that particular person). This supports the separate process theory, suggesting that decision and action might be different moral concepts with different foci regarding moral reasoning. Using simulated moral scenarios thus seems essential as it illustrates possible mechanisms of empathy and altruism being more relevant for moral actions especially given the physical presence of virtual humans in IVR.
Highlights
Casebeer and Churchland [1] defined moral reasoning as “ . . . a series of acts that result in a conclusion about what one ought to do or think” (p. 16)
To study and illustrate human moral decision-making, most researchers use theoretical moral dilemmas, such as the trolley dilemma, in which one needs to decide whether to divert a trolley on an alternative track which would kill one man, but save five other people on the original track
We suggest that moral reasoning processing differences in immersive virtual reality (IVR) and paper/pencil would occur independent of the moral decision that is being made
Summary
Casebeer and Churchland [1] defined moral reasoning as “ . . . a series of acts that result in a conclusion about what one ought to do or think” (p. 16). To study and illustrate human moral decision-making, most researchers use theoretical moral dilemmas, such as the trolley dilemma, in which one needs to decide whether to divert a trolley on an alternative track which would kill one man, but save five other people on the original track. A second “up close and personal” version of this dilemma involves pushing (and thereby killing) a person in front of the trolley as a means to prevent five people from being killed further down the track [2]. People choose to switch tracks in the “impersonal” trolley version to save the five; this has been termed as a utilitarian decision. The original trolley dilemma gives information about the moral decision, but not about the moral reasoning process that participants might engage in when they make this decision These moral decisions only have a binary outcome: Is it morally acceptable; ‘yes’ or ‘no’? the original trolley dilemma gives information about the moral decision, but not about the moral reasoning process that participants might engage in when they make this decision
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callMore From: International journal of environmental research and public health
Disclaimer: 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.
