How to weigh lives. A computational model of moral judgment in multiple-outcome structures

Engelmann, Neele; Waldmann, Michael R.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104910

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous evidence motivates both competing hypotheses: on the one hand, comprehensively evaluating an incident’s moral status can demand ample cognitive resources (see Kennett & Fine, 2009). For instance, people’s moral judgments operate over information about the probability and magnitude of a behavior’s morally relevant outcomes (Engelmann & Waldmann, 2022; Shenhav & Greene, 2010) and integrate these representations of outcome value with inferences about the perpetrator’s accompanying mental state (Patil & Trémolière, 2021; Young et al, 2010). These results characterize moral reasoning as fairly cognitively demanding, suggesting that counter-literal judgments may be supported by cognitive processing.…”

Section: Purpose or Morality?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral appraisals guide intuitive legal determinations.

Flanagan¹,

Almeida²,

Struchiner³

et al. 2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: We sought to understand how basic competencies in moral reasoning influence the application of private, institutional, and legal rules. Hypotheses: We predicted that moral appraisals, implicating both outcome-based and mental state reasoning, would shape participants’ interpretation of rules and statutes—and asked whether these effects arise differentially under intuitive and reflective reasoning conditions. Method: In six vignette-based experiments (total N = 2,473; 293 university law students [67% women; age bracket mode: 18–22 years] and 2,180 online workers [60% women; mean age = 31.9 years]), participants considered a wide range of written rules and laws and determined whether a protagonist had violated the rule in question. We manipulated morally relevant aspects of each incident—including the valence of the rule’s purpose (Study 1) and of the outcomes that ensued (Studies 2 and 3), as well as the protagonist’s accompanying mental state (Studies 5 and 6). In two studies, we simultaneously varied whether participants decided under time pressure or following a forced delay (Studies 4 and 6). Results: Moral appraisals of the rule’s purpose, the agent’s extraneous blameworthiness, and the agent’s epistemic state impacted legal determinations and helped to explain participants’ departure from rules’ literal interpretation. Counter-literal verdicts were stronger under time pressure and were weakened by the opportunity to reflect. Conclusions: Under intuitive reasoning conditions, legal determinations draw on core competencies in moral cognition, such as outcome-based and mental state reasoning. In turn, cognitive reflection dampens these effects on statutory interpretation, allowing text to play a more influential role.

show abstract

Section: Purpose or Morality?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral appraisals guide intuitive legal determinations.

Flanagan¹,

Almeida²,

Struchiner³

et al. 2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The vast majority of work characterizing human moral decision-making, both in psychology (Doris, Group, et al, 2010;Haidt, 2007) and experimental philosophy (Knobe, 2007;Alexander, 2012) has focused on identifying factors that are relevant to moral judgment (e.g., affect, rules, utility calculations). Our proposal contributes to an emerging body of work that goes beyond simply identifying these factors, but also seeks to characterize in computational terms the mechanisms underlying moral judgments (Levine et al, 2020;Kleiman-Weiner et al, 2017;Kim et al, 2018;van Baar et al, 2019;Engelmann & Waldmann, 2022;Jiang et al, 2021). Describing the mind in computational terms is a critical step in building AI that can produce and interpret human moral judgment (Kleiman-Weiner et al, 2017;Bonnefon et al, 2020;Russell, 2019).…”

Section: A Computational Approach To Moral Judgment Is Critical For A...mentioning

confidence: 99%

When Is It Acceptable to Break the Rules? Knowledge Representation of Moral Judgement Based on Empirical Data

Awad¹,

Levine²,

Loreggia³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most remarkable things about the human moral mind is its flexibility. We can make moral judgments about cases we have never seen before. We can decide that pre-established rules should be broken. We can invent novel rules on the fly. Capturing this flexibility is one of the central challenges in developing AI systems that can interpret and produce human-like moral judgment. This paper details the results of a study of real-world decision makers who judge whether it is acceptable to break a well-established norm: "no cutting in line." We gather data on how human participants judge the acceptability of line-cutting in a range of scenarios. Then, in order to effectively embed these reasoning capabilities into a machine, we propose a method for modeling them using a preference-based structure, which captures a novel modification to standard "dual process" theories of moral judgment.

show abstract

“…Some theorists have further argued for a subjective utilitarian model of sacrificial decision making, where estimates of general utility are biased in favor of personal gain (e.g., Cohen & Ahn, 2016; Engelmann & Waldmann, 2022) – suggesting that people who endorse utilitarian responding may invest more in sin stocks if they believe such stocks will be personally profitable. Indeed, Hong and Kacperczyk (2009) showed that investment in morally controversial companies produced higher expected returns than other companies.…”

Section: Predicting Sin Stock Investment From Sacrificial Dilemma Jud...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If utilitarian responding indeed reflects antisocial or amoral tendencies, it may predict overlooking the harm sin stocks cause relative to the social benefits of sinful companies such as taxes, employment, and contribution to the economy (e.g., paying suppliers of raw materials). Some theorists have further argued for a subjective utilitarian model of sacrificial decision making, where estimates of general utility are biased in favor of personal gain (e.g., Cohen & Ahn, 2016;Engelmann & Waldmann, 2022) suggesting that people who endorse utilitarian responding may invest more in sin stocks if they believe such stocks will be personally profitable. Indeed, Hong and Kacperczyk (2009) showed that investment in morally controversial companies produced higher expected returns than other companies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deontological and Utilitarian Responses to Sacrificial Dilemmas Predict Disapproval of Sin Stocks

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Investors sometimes invest in the so-called “sin” stocks that cause social harm as a by-product of doing business (e.g., tobacco companies). Three studies examined whether people who reject harm and maximize outcomes in sacrificial dilemmas approve less of investing in sin (but not conventional) stocks. We employed process dissociation to assess harm-rejection (deontological) and outcome-maximization (utilitarian) response tendencies independently. Study 1 ( N = 337) assessed moral approval of stocks: People scoring higher on either deontological or utilitarian response tendencies disapproved of investing in sin, but not conventional, stocks. Study 2 ( N = 402) replicated this effect for willingness to invest in companies abandoning (vs. retaining) socially responsible policies. Study 3 ( N = 558) confirmed earlier findings using more conservative measures. These findings clarify the psychology of morally questionable investment decisions.

show abstract

How to weigh lives. A computational model of moral judgment in multiple-outcome structures

Cited by 11 publications

References 43 publications

Moral appraisals guide intuitive legal determinations.

Moral appraisals guide intuitive legal determinations.

When Is It Acceptable to Break the Rules? Knowledge Representation of Moral Judgement Based on Empirical Data

Deontological and Utilitarian Responses to Sacrificial Dilemmas Predict Disapproval of Sin Stocks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About