Literature DB >> 21601839

When ignorance is no excuse: Different roles for intent across moral domains.

Liane Young1, Rebecca Saxe.   

Abstract

A key factor in legal and moral judgments is intent. Intent differentiates, for instance, murder from manslaughter. Is this true for all moral judgments? People deliver moral judgments of many kinds of actions, including harmful actions (e.g., assault) and purity violations (e.g., incest, consuming taboo substances). We show that intent is a key factor for moral judgments of harm, but less of a factor for purity violations. Based on the agent's innocent intent, participants judged accidental harms less morally wrong than accidental incest; based on the agent's guilty intent, participants judged failed attempts to harm more morally wrong than failed attempts to commit incest. These patterns were specific to moral judgments versus judgments of the agent's control, knowledge, or intent, the action's overall emotional salience, or participants' ratings of disgust. The current results therefore reveal distinct cognitive signatures of distinct moral domains, and may inform the distinct functional roles of moral norms.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21601839     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  29 in total

1.  When minds matter for moral judgment: intent information is neurally encoded for harmful but not impure acts.

Authors:  Alek Chakroff; James Dungan; Jorie Koster-Hale; Amelia Brown; Rebecca Saxe; Liane Young
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Moral status of accidents.

Authors:  Rebecca Saxe
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Eager feelings and vigilant reasons: Regulatory focus differences in judging moral wrongs.

Authors:  James F M Cornwell; E Tory Higgins
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2016-01-04

4.  Cognitive processes in imaginative moral shifts: How judgments of morally unacceptable actions change.

Authors:  Beyza Tepe; Ruth M J Byrne
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-05-09

5.  The Effects of Intent, Outcome, and Causality on Moral Judgments and Decision Processes.

Authors:  Aurore Gaboriaud; Flora Gautheron; Jean-Charles Quinton; Annique Smeding
Journal:  Psychol Belg       Date:  2022-07-04

6.  Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variation in the role of intentions in moral judgment.

Authors:  H Clark Barrett; Alexander Bolyanatz; Alyssa N Crittenden; Daniel M T Fessler; Simon Fitzpatrick; Michael Gurven; Joseph Henrich; Martin Kanovsky; Geoff Kushnick; Anne Pisor; Brooke A Scelza; Stephen Stich; Chris von Rueden; Wanying Zhao; Stephen Laurence
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-03-28       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  The Moral Dyad: A Fundamental Template Unifying Moral Judgment.

Authors:  Kurt Gray; Adam Waytz; Liane Young
Journal:  Psychol Inq       Date:  2012-05-31

8.  There's something about a fair split: intentionality moderates context-based fairness considerations in social decision-making.

Authors:  Sina Radke; Berna Güroğlu; Ellen R A de Bruijn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality.

Authors:  Kurt Gray; Liane Young; Adam Waytz
Journal:  Psychol Inq       Date:  2012-05-31

10.  Omissions and byproducts across moral domains.

Authors:  Peter DeScioli; Kelly Asao; Robert Kurzban
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-11       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.