Cognition 119:166-178 (2011)
|Abstract||When we evaluate moral agents, we consider many factors, including whether the agent acted freely, or under duress or coercion. In turn, moral evaluations have been shown to influence our (non-moral) evaluations of these same factors. For example, when we judge an agent to have acted immorally, we are subsequently more likely to judge the agent to have acted freely, not under force. Here, we investigate the cognitive signatures of this effect in interpersonal situations, in which one agent (“forcer”) forces another agent (“forcee”) to act either immorally or morally. The structure of this relationship allowed us to ask questions about both the “forcer” and the “forcee.” Paradoxically, participants judged that the “forcer” forced the “forcee” to act immorally (i.e. X forced Y), but that the “forcee” was not forced to act immorally (i.e. Y was not forced by X). This pattern obtained only for human agents who acted intentionally. Directly changing participants’ focus from one agent to another (forcer vs. forcee) also changed the target of moral evaluation and therefore force attributions. The full pattern of judgments may provide a window into motivated moral reasoning and focusing bias more generally; participants may have been motivated to attribute greater force to the immoral forcer and greater freedom to the immoral forcee.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jonathan Phillips & Liane Young (2011). Apparent Paradoxes in Moral Reasoning; Or How You Forced Him to Do It, Even Though He Wasn’T Forced to Do It. Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society:138-143.
Susanne Bobzien (2006). Moral Responsibility and Moral Development in Epicurus’ Philosophy. In B. Reis & S. Haffmans (eds.), The Virtuous Life in Greek Ethics. CUP.
Julie Tannenbaum (2007). Emotional Expressions of Moral Value. Philosophical Studies 132 (1):43 - 57.
Anthony F. Beavers, Between Angels and Animals: The Question of Robot Ethics, or is Kantian Moral Agency Desirable?
Liane Young, Shaun Nichols & Rebecca Saxe (2010). Investigating the Neural and Cognitive Basis of Moral Luck. [REVIEW] Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3):333-349.
Lawrence Alexander (1984). Another Look at Moral Blackmail. Philosophy Research Archives 10:189-196.
Marion Hourdequin (2012). Empathy, Shared Intentionality, and Motivation by Moral Reasons. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (3):403 - 419.
Dennis R. Cooley (2007). A Kantian Moral Duty for the Soon-to-Be Demented to Commit Suicide. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (6):37 – 44.
Johnnie R. R. Pedersen, "Why Should I Be Moral?" : A Critical Assessment of Three Contemporary Attempts to Give an Extra-Moral Justification of Moral Conduct.
Kelly Sorensen (2010). Effort and Moral Worth. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (1):89 - 109.
M. S. Singer & A. E. Singer (1997). Observer Judgements About Moral Agents' Ethical Decisions: The Role of Scope of Justice and Moral Intensity. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (5):473 - 484.
Douglas W. Portmore, Chapter 5: Dual-Ranking Act-Consequentialism: Reasons, Morality, and Overridingness.
Michael S. Brady (2004). Against Agent-Based Virtue Ethics. Philosophical Papers 33 (1):1-10.
James Dreier (2000). Dispositions and Fetishes. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (3):619 - 638.
Added to index2011-06-07
Total downloads43 ( #30,760 of 722,935 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,864 of 722,935 )
How can I increase my downloads?