The
study by LawrenceNgo, Meagan Kelly, Christopher G. Coutlee, R. McKell Carter, WalterSinnott-Armstrong & Scott A. Huettel, Publishedonline: 04 December 2015 shows why we react more emotionally to bad things people do, then the
good people do.
In
the study, more than 660 people took traditional surveys that included reading
about different scenarios with negative and positive outcomes (like spreading
weed killer and hurting a neighbor’s crops, or spreading anti-fungals and
protecting a neighbor’s crops). Twenty others had their brains scanned as they read
the scenarios and assessed how intentional the actions had been.
The
negative stories were more likely to trigger a reaction stemming from the
amygdala, an emotional center deep inside the scanned brains. Positive actions
were more likely to set off a statistical, reasoned approach, without lighting
up the amygdala at all.
Philosophers
and legal scholars have long theorized about how intentionality serves as a
critical input for morality and culpability, but the emerging field of
experimental philosophy has revealed a puzzling asymmetry. People judge actions
leading to negative consequences as being more intentional than those leading
to positive ones.
The
implications of this asymmetry remain unclear because there is no consensus
regarding the underlying mechanism. Based on converging behavioral and neural
evidence, we demonstrate that there is no single underlying mechanism. Instead,
two distinct mechanisms together generate the asymmetry. Emotion drives
ascriptions of intentionality for negative consequences, while the
consideration of statistical norms leads to the denial of intentionality for
positive consequences.
We
employ this novel two-mechanism model to illustrate that morality can
paradoxically shape judgments of intentionality. This is consequential for mens rea
in legal practice and arguments in moral philosophy pertaining to terror
bombing, abortion, and euthanasia among others
Across
a series of three experiments, converging behavioral and neural evidence
demonstrates two distinct and dissociable mechanisms for judgments of
intentionality. Emotions drives higher ascriptions of intentionality for
negative consequences, while statistical norms derived from beliefs about how
often people behave in similar ways underlie the denial of intentionality for
positive consequences. Further analysis shows that moral judgments of blame and
credit can serve as inputs for intentionality judgments, rather than only the
other way around.
Ngo,
L. et al. Two Distinct Moral Mechanisms for Ascribing and Denying Intentionality.
Sci. Rep. 5, 17390; doi: 10.1038/srep17390 (2015).
No comments:
Post a Comment