Gawronski Bertram, Beer Jennifer S
a Department of Psychology , University of Texas at Austin , Austin , TX , USA.
Soc Neurosci. 2017 Dec;12(6):626-632. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2016.1248787. Epub 2016 Oct 28.
The distinction between utilitarianism and deontology has become a prevailing framework for conceptualizing moral judgment. According to the principle of utilitarianism, the morality of an action depends on its outcomes. In contrast, the principle of deontology states that the morality of an action depends on its consistency with moral norms. To identify the processes underlying utilitarian and deontological judgments, research in psychology and neuroscience has investigated responses to moral dilemmas that pit one principle against the other (e.g., trolley dilemma). However, the interpretation of responses in this paradigm is ambiguous, because the defining aspects of utilitarianism and deontology, outcomes and norms, are not manipulated. We illustrate how this shortcoming distorts interpretations of empirical findings and describe an alternative approach that overcomes the limitations of the traditional paradigm.
功利主义与道义论之间的区别已成为概念化道德判断的一个流行框架。根据功利主义原则,一个行为的道德性取决于其结果。相比之下,道义论原则指出,一个行为的道德性取决于其与道德规范的一致性。为了确定功利主义和道义论判断背后的过程,心理学和神经科学领域的研究调查了人们对将这两种原则相互对立的道德困境(如电车困境)的反应。然而,这种范式下反应的解释并不明确,因为功利主义和道义论的定义要素,即结果和规范,并未得到操控。我们阐述了这一缺陷如何扭曲了对实证研究结果的解释,并描述了一种克服传统范式局限性的替代方法。