Parkinson Mary, Byrne Ruth M J
1 School of Psychology and Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Ireland.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018 Mar;71(3):779-789. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1276942. Epub 2018 Jan 1.
Two experiments examine whether people reason differently about intentional and accidental violations in the moral domains of harm and purity, by examining moral responsibility and wrongness judgments for violations that affect others or the self. The first experiment shows that intentional violations are judged to be worse than accidental ones, regardless of whether they are harm or purity violations-for example, Sam poisons his colleague versus Sam eats his dog, when participants judge how morally responsible was Sam for what he did, or how morally wrong was what Sam did. The second experiment shows that violations of others are judged to be worse than violations of the self, regardless of whether they are harm or purity violations, when their content and context is matched-for example, on a tropical holiday Sam orders poisonous starfruit for dinner for his friend, or for himself, versus on a tropical holiday Sam orders dog meat for dinner for his friend, or for himself. Moral reasoning is influenced by whether the violation was intentional or accidental, and whether its target was the self or another person, rather than by the moral domain, such as harm or purity.
两项实验通过考察对影响他人或自身的违规行为的道德责任和错误判断，来检验人们在伤害与纯洁这两个道德领域中，对故意和意外违规行为的推理是否存在差异。第一个实验表明，无论违规行为是伤害类还是纯洁类，故意违规行为都被判定比意外违规行为更恶劣——例如，当参与者判断山姆对他所做的事情负有多大道德责任，或者山姆的行为在道德上有多错误时，山姆毒死他的同事与山姆吃掉他的狗的情况。第二个实验表明，当违规行为的内容和背景相匹配时，无论违规行为是伤害类还是纯洁类，对他人的违规行为都被判定比对自己的违规行为更恶劣——例如，在热带度假时，山姆为他的朋友或自己订购有毒的杨桃作为晚餐，与在热带度假时，山姆为他的朋友或自己订购狗肉作为晚餐的情况。道德推理受到违规行为是故意还是意外，以及其目标是自己还是他人的影响，而不是受到诸如伤害或纯洁等道德领域的影响。
