scholarly journals Harm to self outweighs benefit to others in moral decision making

2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (30) ◽  
pp. 7963-7968 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas J. Volz ◽  
B. Locke Welborn ◽  
Matthias S. Gobel ◽  
Michael S. Gazzaniga ◽  
Scott T. Grafton

How we make decisions that have direct consequences for ourselves and others forms the moral foundation of our society. Whereas economic theory contends that humans aim at maximizing their own gains, recent seminal psychological work suggests that our behavior is instead hyperaltruistic: We are more willing to sacrifice gains to spare others from harm than to spare ourselves from harm. To investigate how such egoistic and hyperaltruistic tendencies influence moral decision making, we investigated trade-off decisions combining monetary rewards and painful electric shocks, administered to the participants themselves or an anonymous other. Whereas we replicated the notion of hyperaltruism (i.e., the willingness to forego reward to spare others from harm), we observed strongly egoistic tendencies in participants’ unwillingness to harm themselves for others’ benefit. The moral principle guiding intersubject trade-off decision making observed in our study is best described as egoistically biased altruism, with important implications for our understanding of economic and social interactions in our society.

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Youlong Zhan ◽  
Xiao Xiao ◽  
Qianbao Tan ◽  
Jin Li ◽  
Wei Fan ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Borhany ◽  
Soroosh Golbabaei ◽  
Mana Jameie ◽  
Khatereh Borhani

With coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, healthcare and medical professions face challenging situations. High number of infected patients, scarce resources, and being vulnerable to the infection are among the reasons that may influence clinicians’ decision making and puts them in a moral situation. Furthermore, they may be carriers of coronavirus, resulting their social interactions to involve moral decision making. The aim of this study was to examine the moral decision making in clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic and to find its relation to psychological, cognitive, and behavioral correlates. 193 clinicians who worked in hospitals allocated to coronavirus disease patients, participated in our study. We designed an online survey containing 8 dilemmas to test moral decision making in clinicians. Information on clinicians’ behavior, cognition and psychological state during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the degree of respect to social distancing, sources of stress, and dead cases of COVID-19 they confronted with were collected. The relation between these measures and moral decision making was assessed. Based on our results, clinicians’ most important source of stress was the infection of their families. There was a positive correlation between utilitarian responses and clinicians’ stress level, and number of dead cases they confronted with. Moreover, degree of utilitarian behavior was positively correlated to social distancing. Both age and sex contributed to individual differences in respecting social distancing, stress and utilitarian behavior. With increasing stress and encountering more deaths, clinicians tended to decide based on the outcome. Our results have critical implications in implementing policies for healthcare principals.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred W. Kaszniak ◽  
Cynda H. Rushton ◽  
Joan Halifax

The present paper is the product of collaboration between a neuroscientist, an ethicist, and a contemplative exploring issues around leadership, morality, and ethics. It is an exploration on how people in roles of responsibility can better understand how to engage in discernment processes with more awareness and a deeper sense of responsibility for others and themselves. It draws upon recent research and scholarship in neuroscience, contemplative science, and applied ethics to develop a practical understanding of how moral decision-making works and is essential in this time when there can seem to be an increasing moral vacuum in leadership.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Kappes ◽  
Jay Joseph Van Bavel

From moral philosophy to programming driverless cars, scholars have long been interested in how to shape moral decision-making. We examine how framing can impact moral judgments either by shaping which emotional reactions are evoked in a situation (antecedent-focused) or by changing how people respond to their emotional reactions (response-focused). In three experiments, we manipulated the framing of a moral decision-making task before participants judged a series of moral dilemmas. Participants encouraged to go “with their first” response beforehand favored emotion-driven judgments on high-conflict moral dilemmas. In contrast, participants who were instructed to give a “thoughtful” response beforehand or who did not receive instructions on how to approach the dilemmas favored reason-driven judgments. There was no difference in response-focused control during moral judgements. Process-dissociation confirmed that people instructed to go with their first response had stronger emotion-driven intuitions than other conditions. Our results suggest that task framing can alter moral intuitions.


Nurse Leader ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brooklyn Aaron ◽  
Avery Glover ◽  
Evelina Sterling ◽  
Stuart Downs ◽  
Jason Lesandrini

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document