Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

What Dilemma? Moral Evaluation Shapes Factual Belief

27 Pages Posted: 1 Jun 2012  

Brittany Liu

University of California, Irvine

Peter H. Ditto

University of California, Irvine - School of Social Ecology

Date Written: May 18, 2012

Abstract

Moral dilemmas — like the “trolley problem” or real world examples like capital punishment — result from a conflict between consequentialist and deontological intuitions (i.e., whether ends justify means). We contend that people often resolve such moral conflict by aligning factual beliefs about consequences of acts with evaluations of the act’s inherent morality (i.e., morality independent of its consequences). In both artificial (Study 1) and real world (Study 2) dilemmas, the more an act was deemed inherently immoral, the more it was seen as unlikely to produce beneficial consequences and likely to involve harmful costs. Coherence between moral evaluations and factual beliefs increased with greater moral conviction, self-proclaimed topical knowledge, and political conservatism (Study 2). Reading essays about the inherent morality or immorality of capital punishment (Study 3) changed beliefs about its costs and benefits, even though no information about consequences was supplied. Implications for moral reasoning and political conflict are discussed.

Keywords: morality, cost-benefit analysis, motivated reasoning

Suggested Citation

Liu, Brittany and Ditto, Peter H., What Dilemma? Moral Evaluation Shapes Factual Belief (May 18, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2071478 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2071478

Brittany Liu (Contact Author)

University of California, Irvine ( email )

4201 Social & Behavioral Sciences Gateway
Psychology & Social Behavior Dept
Irvine, CA 62697-7085
United States

Peter H. Ditto

University of California, Irvine - School of Social Ecology ( email )

226B Social Ecology 1
Irvine, CA 92697
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
303
Rank
83,526
Abstract Views
1,958