Moral Judgment About Harm: Emotion, Reasoning, and Their Interplay
When facing dilemmas that pit preventing harm against maximising welfare, two competing systems vie for control: emotion-driven harm aversion, and reasoning-based cost-benefit analysis. A decade of research mapped how each operates, when they conflict, and what makes one prevail.
- Reasoning ability predicts utilitarian choices across eight independent studies — independently of how intensely someone dislikes causing harm
- Psychopathy's link to utilitarian judgment traces to reduced aversion to performing harmful acts specifically, not reduced concern for victims
- Emotional immersion in virtual reality closes the gap between what people say they would do and what they actually do, showing that behaviour and stated principles can dissociate
- Better reasoners more readily forgive accidental harms, redirecting attention from emotional reactions toward the perpetrator's innocent intent