Sacrificing Oneself or Another: The Difference Between Prescriptive and Normative Judgments in Moral Evaluation

When asked whether to sacrifice oneself or another person to save others, one might think that people would consider sacrificing themselves rather than someone else as the right and appropriate course of action—thus showing an other-serving bias. So far however, most studies found instances of a self-serving bias—people say they would rather sacrifice others. In three experiments using trolley-like dilemmas, we tested whether an other-serving bias might appear as a function of judgment type. That is, participants were asked to make a prescriptive judgment (whether the described action should or should not be done) or a normative judgment (whether the action is right or wrong). We found that participants exhibited an other-serving bias only when asked whether self- or other-sacrifice is wrong. That is, when the judgment was normative and in a negative frame (in contrast to the positive frame asking whether the sacrifice is right). Otherwise, participants tended to exhibit a self-serving bias; that is, they approved sacrificing others more. The results underscore the importance of question wording and suggest that some effects on moral judgment might depend on the type of judgment.

Sacrificing oneself or another

In situations where one has the opportunity to either sacrifice oneself or another person to save a group of people, one might think that there are instances where people would rather sacrifice themselves than others – thus showing an other-serving bias. So far however, most studies found instances of a self-serving bias – people would rather sacrifice others. In this paper, we test whether an other-serving bias might appear as a function of judgment type. That is, we looked at prescriptive (should/should not) and normative (wrong/right) types of judgments separately. We found that participants exhibited an other-serving bias, but only when asked whether self- or other-sacrifice is wrong. Otherwise, participants were exhibiting a self-serving bias; that is, they approved sacrificing others more. The results underscore the importance of question wording and suggest that some effects on moral judgment might depend on the type of judgment.

Os alimentos provisionais como efetivação do direito aos alimentos e o sistema de tutelas cognitivas de urgência do Novo Código de Processo Civil (Lei nº 13.105/2015) / The brazilian provisional alimonies as realization of the right to alimony and the summary judgment system of the New Civil Procedure Code (Law 13.105/ 2015)

Resumo: Este artigo contém uma análise dos alimentos provisionais como mecanismo jurídico-processual eficaz de tutela do direito aos alimentos, no bojo da sistemática processual civil hodierna, não se olvidando de enfrentar as questões advindas da nova disciplina jurídica das medidas de urgência, inaugurada pela Lei nº 13.105/2015 (Novo Código de Processo Civil). Para tanto, o presente texto, em estudo crítico-doutrinário, perscruta, pormenorizadamente a disciplina jurídica atinente aos alimentos provisionais enquanto modalidade de tutela antecipatória, diferenciando-os dos alimentos provisórios. Disserta acerca das desconcertantes indagações oriundas da desregulamentação das tutelas cognitivas de urgência nominadas promovida pela nova codificação, problematizando suas repercussões sobre o instituto dos alimentos provisionais. Propõe, para cada uma delas, sem desprezar a relevância futura dos contributos doutrinários e jurisprudenciais, possíveis soluções, que prezem pela minimização das dificuldades a serem criadas.Abstract:Â This article analyses the Brazilian provisional alimony/alimony pendente lite as a procedural realization and a legal mechanism of protection for the rights of alimony, palimony, parental and child support in the wake of contemporary Brazilian civil procedural system, not forgetting to address the issues arising from the new summary judgment legal regulation, inaugurated by Law 13,105/2015 (New Civil Procedure Code). For this purpose, the present text, a critically-doctrinal study, scrutinize in detail the legal regulation pertaining to provisional alimonies while Brazilian anticipatory summary judgment type, distinguishing them from Brazilian provisory alimony. It discusses about the perplexing questions arising from the deregulation of nominated summary judgment system, promoted by the new coding, questioning its impact on the institute of provisional alimonies. It proposes, for each of these questions, without neglecting the future relevance of the doctrinal and jurisprudential contributions, possible solutions, which seek minimizing the difficulties to be created.

Focus and Judgment Type in San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec

Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure (1997)

Critique of S. S. Stevens' Theory of Measurement Scale Classification

Numerous observations are incongruous with Stevens-tradition theory of scale classification: (a) ratio scales, when available, are not necessarily preferred to interval scales; (b) the same scale changes classification depending on the use to which it is put; (c) a scale considered in isolation cannot be classified; (d) performing an inadmissible transformation on a scale entails no loss of information; and (e) the ratio scales of psychophysics do not qualify as interval scales. These incongruities result from such theorists': (a) belief that they classify scales when they really classify functions between scales; (b) belief that scientists seek new rules for assigning numbers to familiar events when, in fact, they seek new events to assign numbers to using familiar rules; and (c) confusion of function type with judgment type, leading to the erroneous claim that the ratio scales of psychophysics are distinct from other behavioral scales. Implications of the above interpretation of Stevens-tradition theory are that: (a) ranking of scales according to desirability is situation-specific—a situation-free ranking clashes with scientists' frequent preference for “inferior” scales and (b) proscriptions against mathematical manipulations or tests of statistical significance apply not to a single scale but to inferences from one scale to another.