Keywords
moral judgements
deontology
utilitarianism
empirical research
How to Cite
Abstract
Ethical dilemmas facing respondents with a choice between sacrificing the lives of a smaller number of people to save a larger number, formulated in correspondence to the famous Trolley Problem, have been of enduring interest almost since the Philippa Foot’s presentation of the canonical version of this problem. In more recent literature, and especially in publications reporting the results of empirical research, decisions of answerers declaring abstention from taking action that would result in saving a larger group of potential victims at the cost of sacrificing the lives of fewer people have come to be referred to as “deontological” choices. On the other hand, declarations of readiness to take such actions are referred to as “utilitarian” or (less frequently) “consequentialist” choices. The aim of the article is to demonstrate the shortcomings of using the aforementioned labels. The argumentation is supported by empirical material collected in the years 2020–2022 among students of the University of Łódź (N = 302). The analysis of justifications explaining the motives behind both types of decisions left by the respondents shows that in numerous cases, “deontological” decisions, that is, passive decisions, actually stemmed from premises much closer to consequentialist ethics than deontological attitudes. Similarly, active behaviour was not always the outcome of utilitarian motives. The results of our research clearly indicate that the dominant, simplified perception of these choices in the literature leads to a distorted picture of the moral attitudes of respondents, thus posing the danger of drawing false conclusions. We claim that distinguishing between attitudes adopted by respondents in dilemmas based on the Trolley Problem should not refer to ethical doctrines. Instead, judging the moral attitudes of respondents requires an analysis of the motives behind the decisions they make at the very least.
References
Amit E., Greene J.D., You see, the ends don’t justify the means: Visual imagery and moral judgment, „Psychological Science” 2012, no. 8(23), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434965
Bago B., Kovacs M., Protzko J. i in., Situational factors shape moral judgements in the trolley dilemma in Eastern, Southern and Western countries in a culturally diverse sample, „Nature Human Behaviour” 2022, no. 6,
Bentham J., An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1907/1789. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00077240
Dzionek-Kozłowska J., Korkus A., Siewiera W., Szpotański K., Does Economic Education Spoil Students’ Morality? Economists and the Trolley Problem, „Economics & Sociology” 2024, no. 2(17), DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2024/17-2/5
Dzionek-Kozłowska J., Rehman S.N., Career choices and moral choices. Changing tracks in the Trolley Problem, „Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric” 2019, no 1(59), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2019-0036
Foot P., The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect, „Oxford Review” 1967, no. 5.
Greene J.D., The secret joke of Kant’s soul, w: Moral Psychology, vol. 3: The neuroscience of morality: Emotion, disease, and development, red. W. Sinnott-Armstrong, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008.
Greene J.D., Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains, „Trends in Cognitive Sciences” 2007, no 8(11). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.004
Greene J.D., Cushman F.A., Stewart L.E., Lowenberg K., Nystrom L.E., Cohen J.D., Pushing Moral Buttons: The Interaction between Personal Force and Intention in Moral Judgement, „Cognition” 2009, no. 3(111). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.001
Greene J.D., Nystrom L.E., Engell A., Darley J.M., Cohen J.D., The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgement, „Neuron” 2004, no. 2(44). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027
Greene J.D., Sommerville R.B., Nystrom L.E., Darley J.M., Cohen J.D., An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgement, „Science” 2001, no. 5537(293), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872
Greene J.D., Young L., The cognitive neuroscience of moral judgment and decision-making, w: The Cognitive Neurosciences, 6th ed., eds. D. Poeppel, G.R. Mangun, M.S. Gazzaniga, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11442.003.0114
Hauser M., Cushman F., Young L., Kang-Xing Jin R., Mikhail J., A dissociation between moral judgments and justifications, „Mind & Language” 2007, no. 1(22), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00297.x
Kant I., Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, ed. and transl. M. Gregor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2003 (1785).
Lanteri A., Chelini C., Rizzello S., An Experimental Investigation of Emotions and Reasoning in the Trolley Problem, „Journal of Business Ethics” 2008, vol. 83, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9665-8
Mill J.S., Utilitarianism, Oxford University Press, New York 1998/1861.
Plunkett D., Greene J.D., Overlooked Evidence and a Misunderstanding of What Trolley Dilemmas Do Best: Commentary on Bostyn, Sevenhant, and Roets, „Psychological Science” 2018, no. 9(30), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619827914
Rehman S.N., Dzionek-Kozłowska J., The Trolley Problem Revisited. An Exploratory Study, „Annales. Ethics in Economic Life” 2018, no. 3(21), DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1899-2226.21.3.02
Singer P., Ethics and intuitions, „Journal of Ethics” 2005, no. 9, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-005-3508-y
Thomson J.J., Killing, letting die, and the Trolley Problem, „The Monist” 1976, no. 2(59). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197659224
Thomson J.J., The Trolley Problem, „The Yale Law Journal” 1985, no. 6(94). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/796133
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Joanna Dzionek-Kozłowska, Adrian Korkus, Kacper Szpotański
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Czasopismo oraz wszystkie zamieszczone w nim materiały są powszechnie dostępne i mogą być wykorzystywane do celów naukowych, edukacyjnych, poznawczych i niekomercyjnych bez konieczności uzyskiwania każdorazowej zgody autorów i redakcji. Nadesłanie artykułu do publikacji traktowane jest jako zgoda autora na udostępnienie swojej pracy i informacji w niej zawartych do powyżej wymienionych celów. W takich przypadkach należy jedynie wskazać źródło, z którego zaczerpnięte zostały informacje. Pobieranie opłat za dostęp do materiałów zawartych w czasopiśmie lub ograniczanie do niego dostępu jest zabronione.
Przesyłane do redakcji teksty muszą stanowić oryginalne prace, uprzednio nigdzie niepublikowane ani nie przedkładane innym redakcjom lub wydawcom. Autorzy nadsyłanych artykułów ponoszą odpowiedzialność za uzyskanie zezwoleń na publikowanie materiałów, do których prawa autorskie są w posiadaniu osób trzecich. Publikacja materiałów chronionych prawem autorskim jest możliwa pod warunkiem uprzedniego dostarczenia przez autora do redakcji pisemnej zgody właściciela praw autorskich.