Abstract
In the study of utilitarian morality, the sacrificial dilemma paradigm has been the dominant approach for years. However, to address some of the most pressing issues in the current research literature, the present studies adopt an alternative approach by using a minimal group paradigm in which participants have to make decisions about the allocation of resources. This approach allows not only to pit utilitarianism against equality-based morality, but also to study these modes of morality for both harm and benefit, and to directly address the role of group identity affecting the (im)partial nature of ‘utilitarian’ (i.e., outcome maximizing) decisions. In our experiments, across four different samples (total N = 946), we demonstrate that although participants generally prefer equality-based allocations over maximizing distributions, outcome maximizing choices become more prevalent when they served to minimize harm compared to maximizing benefit. Furthermore, reducing the objective value of the equal distribution outcomes further prompts participants to adopt a more utilitarian approach in situations involving harm, but has little effect in situations where benefits have to be distributed. Finally, the introduction of (minimal) group identity consistently demonstrates that decisions that maximize the overall outcome are more likely if they also serve the ingroup compared to when they rather serve the outgroup. We discuss how these findings have meaningful implications that may be especially relevant for recent movements that advocate a utilitarian approach to charity, and for our understanding of (im)partiality in lay people’s ‘utilitarian’ decision making.
Highlights
In the study of utilitarian morality, the sacrificial dilemma paradigm has been the dominant approach for years
Critical voices have argued that research on utilitarian vs non-utilitarian modes of morality relying on sacrificial dilemmas, can only provide a partial picture of utilitarian morality
It has been asserted that the use of such sacrificial dilemmas as the primary or sole means to investigate utilitarianism “ignores the positive, altruistic core of utilitarianism, which is characterized by impartial concern for the wellbeing of everyone” (6, p. 131)
Summary
In the study of utilitarian morality, the sacrificial dilemma paradigm has been the dominant approach for years. Regardless of one’s position in this debate, it can hardly be contested that research that simultaneously focusses on both minimizing harm and on maximizing benefit can provide a more encompassing picture of utilitarian decision making Important, it may shed light on possible, fundamental differences in (utilitarian) moral reasoning about harm and benefit in lay people. It has been argued that moral cognition seems inherently more attuned to evaluating harmful compared to beneficial actions[16], and that people are especially wary about causing harm to others (and often even prefer receiving pain themselves rather than to inflict it on others)[17] These various findings may be directly relevant for people’s use of utilitarianism-based morality in harm versus benefit situations. We hypothesize that in situations that involve inflicting harm, people are especially motivated to minimize such harms and should be more inclined to follow a utilitarian reasoning to that end, whereas in situations where benefits are distributed, there may be less pressing concerns to maximize benefit and more room for other moral principles (i.e., equality, see below)
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.
