The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering.

Abstract

When something is wrong, someone is harmed. This hypothesis derives from the theory of dyadic morality, which suggests a moral cognitive template of wrongdoing agent and suffering patient (i.e., victim). This dyadic template means that victimless wrongs (e.g., masturbation) are psychologically incomplete, compelling the mind to perceive victims even when they are objectively absent. Five studies reveal that dyadic completion occurs automatically and implicitly: Ostensibly harmless wrongs are perceived to have victims (Study 1), activate concepts of harm (Studies 2 and 3), and increase perceptions of suffering (Studies 4 and 5). These results suggest that perceiving harm in immorality is intuitive and does not require effortful rationalization. This interpretation argues against both standard interpretations of moral dumbfounding and domain-specific theories of morality that assume the psychological existence of harmless wrongs. Dyadic completion also suggests that moral dilemmas in which wrongness (deontology) and harm (utilitarianism) conflict are unrepresentative of typical moral cognition.

Searching for Moral Dumbfounding: Identifying Measurable Indicators of Moral Dumbfounding

“…Some authors have argued that moral dumbfounding does not really exist (Gray et al, 2014;Jacoby, 1983; see also Royzman et al, 2015;Sneddon, 2007;Wielenberg, 2014). 3 The studies described in the present paper aim to replicate the initial interview study of Haidt et al (2000), and to explore practicable methods for testing the phenomenon, and its variability, in larger sample sizes.…”

“…In recent years moral dumbfounding has been challenged by a number of authors (e.g., Gray et al, 2014;Jacobson, 2012;Sneddon, 2007;Wielenberg, 2014), arguing, in line with rationalist theories of moral judgement (Kohlberg, 1971;Narvaez, 2005;Topolski, Weaver, Martin, & McCoy, 2013), that moral judgements are grounded in reasons. Recent work by Royzman, Kim, and Leeman (2015), involving a series of studies focusing on the Incest dilemma, identified two reasons that may be guiding participants' judgements.…”

Immorality East and West

“…This evidence suggests that "moral" judgments cannot be described as universally and particularly characterized by the perception of harm and suffering (as suggested by Gray et al, 2014), and is more congruent with an interpretation of moral judgments' focal concerns being plural, and shifting as guided by culture (Graham et al, 2013). It is consistent with a description of Chinese morality as primarily a form of virtue ethics, in which immoral behaviors are those that show one's character to be insufficiently polished; criminal behaviors, on the other hand, are too extreme to be relevant to virtue (Bakken, 2000;A.…”

At the Heart of Morality Lies Neuro-Visceral Integration: Lower Cardiac Vagal Tone Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgment

“…There is substantial evidence highlighting the role that aversion to harm plays in moral judgments (Blair, 1995;Cushman et al, 2012;Crockett, 2013;Schein and Ward, 2014). Such harm aversion can arise either from thinking about the outcome caused by a specific action-not pushing the person on the tracks which will cause five people to die-or by the action itself-pushing a person on the tracks (Crockett, 2013;Cushman, 2013).…”