Search Here

The saying that the 'ends justify the means' is often subjected to debate. Some people, taking the non-utilitarian viewpoint, believe that no one should be killed regardless of possible outcomes, where as other people believe that some fatalities could be justified to a certain extent if it is better for the overall group. In a new study, researchers aimed to analyze the relationship between people's emotional response and their moral judgment based on non-utilitarian or utilitarian beliefs. The research team, co-authored by Liane Young, an assistant professor of psychology at Boston College and Ezequiel Gleichgerrcht from the Institute of Cognitive Neurology and Argentina's Favaloro University, wanted to observe whether or not emotional responding was reduced in people with utilitarian beliefs and enhanced in people with non-utilitarian beliefs.

The research team recruited 2748 participants who were exposed to three situations with different moral dilemmas. The first two dilemmas included a personal and an impersonal way of approaching the situation. In the first setting, the participants were informed that they could save five people from dying if they pushed one person in front of a vehicle. In the impersonal version of this setting, participants were told that they could flip a switch to change the vehicle's direction.

In the second scenario, participants were told that they could save three people if they flipped a switch that would divert toxic gas from this group to a room containing only one person, who would subsequently die. In the personal version of this setting, the participants were asked if it would be morally okay to kill a crying baby in order to save a large number of civilians during wartime.

The last scenario measured moral dilemma and selfishness. The participants were asked if it would be okay to take organs from a dying but unwilling patient in order to save five other patients. In order to measure selfishness, the researchers asked the participants if it was okay to save money by reporting personal expenses on a tax return. Based from these three scenarios, the researchers concluded that people with utilitarian beliefs would choose to save more people despite fatalities. People who reported less concern or compassion in general for others picked the utilitarian option in each scenario. Their decisions were based on reduced empathic concern as opposed to simply being immoral. Therefore, for a person with utilitarian beliefs, saving the group surpasses the importance of saving every single person.

"Diminished emotional responses, specifically, reduced empathic concern, appear to be critical in facilitating utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas of high emotional salience," the researchers stated according to Medical Xpress.

The study was published in PLoS ONE.