4 ms·

The main study which prompted this article is available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103117308181 https://www.sciencedirect.com/

by EndXA 7y ago

The main study which prompted this article is available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103117308181 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210311... Abstract: > Previous work has demonstrated that people are more likely to trust “deontological” agents who reject harming one person to save many others than “consequentialist” agents who endorse such instrumental harms, which could explain the higher prevalence of non-consequentialist moral intuitions. Yet consequentialism involves endorsing not just instrumental harm, but also impartial beneficence, treating the well-being of every individual as equally important. In four studies (total N = 2086), we investigated preferences for consequentialist vs. non-consequentialist social partners endorsing instrumental harm or impartial beneficence and examined how such preferences varied across different types of social relationships. Our results demonstrate robust preferences for non-consequentialist over consequentialist agents in the domain of instrumental harm, and weaker – but still evident – preferences in the domain of impartial beneficence. In the domain of instrumental harm, non-consequentialist agents were consistently viewed as more moral and trustworthy, preferred for a range of social roles, and entrusted with more money in economic exchanges. In the domain of impartial beneficence, preferences for non-consequentialist agents were observed for close interpersonal relationships requiring direct interaction (friend, spouse) but not for more distant roles with little-to-no personal interaction (political leader). Collectively our findings demonstrate that preferences for non-consequentialist agents are sensitive to the different dimensions of consequentialist thinking and the relational context.

CSSer 7y ago
For those who have studied Philosophical Ethics in High School or Undergrad, you'll probably be familiar with the term "deontological" (lit. 'derived from god') but are perhaps not used to the term "consequentialist" or "consequentialism". Per the study, "consequentialism" is Utilitarianism, which may be more familiar to you. > "...said to be making a “consequentialist” (or “utilitarian”) judgment in line with consequentialist ethical theories (Bentham, 1789/1983; Mill, 1863)."
- jfengel 7y ago
  Strictly, there are other forms of consequentialism besides utilitarianism, though utilitarianism is perhaps the most familiar. Consequentialism means (duh) judging your morality based on the consequences of your actions. Utilitarianism means making that judgment in terms of some quantifiable "utility" or "value". But there are other ways to make that judgment, including applying intuition or even applying some kind of deontological deity-given rules. The utilitarian framework is so broad that it can be extended to cover all of this, and to cover deontology for that matter ("utility is defined as following the rules of X ethical framework").
  - Throw_Away_6389 7y ago
    >The utilitarian framework is so broad that it can be extended to cover all of this, and to cover deontology for that matter ("utility is defined as following the rules of X ethical framework"). But for it to be utilitarianism you have to apply this universally. So making someone follow the ethical framework is just as good as following it yourself (something deontologists generally disagree with). The utilitarian calculus had to give actions that make other people follow the ethical framework a negative utility in such a way that you will always come out only following the ethical framework for yourself.
  - gowld 7y ago
    For example, a deontological ethic might say "you must not drive drunk" under a theory of negligence, and "you must not negotiate with terrorists", but a consequentialist ethic might say "you may drive drunk but not kill someone while driving" and "you should acquiesce to terroristic threats to prevent a murder". And a utilitarian ethic would measure how many lives would be lost under each choice, and perhaps assign variable value to those lives (by age or health or potential future productive output)
- al_form2000 7y ago
  Hate to nitpick, but 'deont' in deontology does not come from the (latin) root "deus', rather from the Greek root 'deont' - that which pertains to duty.
k__ 7y ago
TL;DR People like you if you wouldn't sacrifice them for the benefit of the group.
- ken 7y ago
  I see a lot more subtlety here than that. This is already a pop summary of work published in the "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology". Do we need to reduce every piece of information to a 10-word summary?
  - k__ 7y ago
    It is. They also say you like people more who spend their time and money on you and not on some strangers who need those resources more than you. Anyway, I just wrote this "summary" because I had the impression the diction was a bit heavy for mere mortals :)
SiempreViernes 7y ago
No mention of culture in the article, and apparently the Mechanical Turk population isn't actually that large[0], seems like this is likely to be a pretty WEIRD[1] result. The WEIRD paper actually references evidence that altruistic behaviour is punished in some cultures (Figure 4), so to do a study of something similar without a good handle on the cultural background of the participants seems pretty trash. The do have the nicest open science solution I've ever seen though, with very pretty Rweave (or some other notebook) renderings easily available: https://osf.io/xecdt/ https://osf.io/xecdt/ [0]: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/psychologists-grow-increasingly-dependent-online-research-subjects https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/psychologists-grow-i... [1]: https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- TheOperator 7y ago
  This is a huge asterisk. It's hard to generalize the moral leanings of the entire population from mechanical turk. This study really only applies to a specific population of people.
frank0631 7y ago
Does anyone else watch The Good Place? I really like The Good Place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-AawAKZ14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-AawAKZ14

by EndXA 7y ago

CSSer 7y ago

For those who have studied Philosophical Ethics in High School or Undergrad, you'll probably be familiar with the term "deontological" (lit. 'derived from god') but are perhaps not used to the term "consequentialist" or "consequentialism". Per the study, "consequentialism" is Utilitarianism, which may be more familiar to you. > "...said to be making a “consequentialist” (or “utilitarian”) judgment in line with consequentialist ethical theories (Bentham, 1789/1983; Mill, 1863)."

jfengel 7y ago
Strictly, there are other forms of consequentialism besides utilitarianism, though utilitarianism is perhaps the most familiar. Consequentialism means (duh) judging your morality based on the consequences of your actions. Utilitarianism means making that judgment in terms of some quantifiable "utility" or "value". But there are other ways to make that judgment, including applying intuition or even applying some kind of deontological deity-given rules. The utilitarian framework is so broad that it can be extended to cover all of this, and to cover deontology for that matter ("utility is defined as following the rules of X ethical framework").
- Throw_Away_6389 7y ago
  >The utilitarian framework is so broad that it can be extended to cover all of this, and to cover deontology for that matter ("utility is defined as following the rules of X ethical framework"). But for it to be utilitarianism you have to apply this universally. So making someone follow the ethical framework is just as good as following it yourself (something deontologists generally disagree with). The utilitarian calculus had to give actions that make other people follow the ethical framework a negative utility in such a way that you will always come out only following the ethical framework for yourself.
- gowld 7y ago
  For example, a deontological ethic might say "you must not drive drunk" under a theory of negligence, and "you must not negotiate with terrorists", but a consequentialist ethic might say "you may drive drunk but not kill someone while driving" and "you should acquiesce to terroristic threats to prevent a murder". And a utilitarian ethic would measure how many lives would be lost under each choice, and perhaps assign variable value to those lives (by age or health or potential future productive output)
al_form2000 7y ago
Hate to nitpick, but 'deont' in deontology does not come from the (latin) root "deus', rather from the Greek root 'deont' - that which pertains to duty.

k__ 7y ago

TL;DR People like you if you wouldn't sacrifice them for the benefit of the group.

ken 7y ago
I see a lot more subtlety here than that. This is already a pop summary of work published in the "Journal of Experimental Social Psychology". Do we need to reduce every piece of information to a 10-word summary?
- k__ 7y ago
  It is. They also say you like people more who spend their time and money on you and not on some strangers who need those resources more than you. Anyway, I just wrote this "summary" because I had the impression the diction was a bit heavy for mere mortals :)

SiempreViernes 7y ago

No mention of culture in the article, and apparently the Mechanical Turk population isn't actually that large[0], seems like this is likely to be a pretty WEIRD[1] result. The WEIRD paper actually references evidence that altruistic behaviour is punished in some cultures (Figure 4), so to do a study of something similar without a good handle on the cultural background of the participants seems pretty trash. The do have the nicest open science solution I've ever seen though, with very pretty Rweave (or some other notebook) renderings easily available: https://osf.io/xecdt/ https://osf.io/xecdt/ [0]: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/psychologists-grow-increasingly-dependent-online-research-subjects https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/psychologists-grow-i... [1]: https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
TheOperator 7y ago
This is a huge asterisk. It's hard to generalize the moral leanings of the entire population from mechanical turk. This study really only applies to a specific population of people.

frank0631 7y ago

Does anyone else watch The Good Place? I really like The Good Place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-AawAKZ14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-AawAKZ14