Beliefs we "protect" trump doing the right thing based strictly on outcomes. The authors use the example of "you can't place a value on a human life," but of course judges and juries do that all the time. How does this translate to the value we place on animal lives?
Morals do not conquer all in decision making:
"Is morally-motivated choice different from other kinds of decision making? Previous research has implied that the answer is yes, suggesting that certain sacred or protected values are resistant to real world tradeoffs. In fact, proposed tradeoffs between the sacred and the secular lead to moral outrage and an outright refusal to consider costs and benefits (e.g.'You can't put a price on a human life').
Previous theory in moral decision making suggested that if people are guided by protected values, values that equate to rules like 'do no harm', they may focus on the distinction between acting/doing harm versus not acting/allowing harm, paying less attention to consequences. People who make choices based on these values, thus show 'quantity insensitivity' relative to people without protected values for a given situation. "
0 Comments:
Post a Comment