University of Sussex
Browse
- No file added yet -

Self-reported reasons for moral decisions

Download (389.55 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2023-06-09, 08:31 authored by Tom FarsidesTom Farsides, Paul Sparks, Donna JessopDonna Jessop
Many investigations of moral decision-making employ hypothetical scenarios in which each participant has to choose between two options. One option is usually deemed “utilitarian” and the other either “non-utilitarian” or “deontological”. Very little has been done to establish the validity of such measures. It is unclear what they measure, let alone how well they do so. In this exploratory study, participants were asked about the reasons for their decisions in six hypothetical scenarios. Various concerns contributed to each decision. Action decisions occurred when utilitarian concerns dominated. Bystanding decisions resulted from different concerns or combinations of concerns dominating in different situations, with utilitarianism usually among participants’ concerns. None of the labels usually used for either decision therefore seems entirely appropriate. Five concerns were identified as necessary and sufficient to predict over 85% of participants’ decisions. This suggests great promise for future research, particularly in investigation of real-world moral decisions.

History

Publication status

  • Published

File Version

  • Accepted version

Journal

Thinking and Reasoning

ISSN

1354-6783

Publisher

Taylor and Francis

Issue

1

Volume

24

Page range

1-20

Department affiliated with

  • Psychology Publications

Full text available

  • Yes

Peer reviewed?

  • Yes

Legacy Posted Date

2017-10-31

First Open Access (FOA) Date

2018-09-13

First Compliant Deposit (FCD) Date

2017-10-31

Usage metrics

    University of Sussex (Publications)

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC