Abstract

The nature of moral action versus moral judgment has been extensively debated in numerous disciplines. We introduce Virtual Reality (VR) moral paradigms examining the action individuals take in a high emotionally arousing, direct action-focused, moral scenario. In two studies involving qualitatively different populations, we found a greater endorsement of utilitarian responses–killing one in order to save many others–when action was required in moral virtual dilemmas compared to their judgment counterparts. Heart rate in virtual moral dilemmas was significantly increased when compared to both judgment counterparts and control virtual tasks. Our research suggests that moral action may be viewed as an independent construct to moral judgment, with VR methods delivering new prospects for investigating and assessing moral behaviour.

Highlights

  • Life is full of examples of not “practicing what you preach” (e.g., [1])

  • For the action condition, endorsing a utilitarian outcome and pushing the man in Virtual Reality (VR) was not associated with prior gaming experience

  • We found no reason to alter the joystick response option from the present virtual moral dilemma; the increase in utilitarian responses was not likely induced by game-related affordance effects

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Life is full of examples of not “practicing what you preach” (e.g., [1]). Despite the abundance of these real-life moral inconsistencies, the relationship between moral judgment and action remains unclear [4]. The classic example is the “trolley problem” comprising both the “footbridge” and “switch” dilemmas [6]. In the footbridge dilemma, when faced with the prospect of pushing a large man off a bridge in order to stop an approaching trolley threatening to kill five construction workers, the majority of people say that they would disapprove of this harmful action. In the switch dilemma, when faced with the task of switching a trolley’s direction to kill one worker instead of five, the majority of people will approve [5]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

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.