Open AccessJournal Article
Moral heuristics. Commentaries. Author's reply
Cass R. Sunstein,Matthew D. Adler,Christopher J. Anderson,Elizabeth Anderson,Jonathan Baron,Karen Bartsch,Jennifer Cole Wright,William D. Casebeer,Pablo Fernández-Berrocal,Natalio Extremera,Barbara H. Fried,Richard J. Gerrig,Michael E. Gorman,Ulrike Hahn,John-Mark Frost,Greg Maio,Jonathan Haidt,Marc D. Hauser,Harold Herzog,Gordon M. Burghardt,Robert A. Hinde,Jonathan J. Koehler,Andrew D. Gershoff,John Mikhail,David A. Pizarro,Eric Luis Uhlmann,Liana Ritov,Peter Singer,Edward Stein,Philip E. Tetlock,Elke U. Weber,Jessica S. Ancker +31 more
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
The idea of error-prone heuristics is especially controversial in the moral domain, where agreement on the correct answer may be hard to elicit; but in many contexts, they are at work and they do real damage.Abstract:
With respect to questions of fact, people use heuristics - mental shot-cuts, or rules of thumb, that generally work well, but that also lead to systematic errors. People use moral heuristics too - moral short-cuts, or rules of thumb, that lead to mistaken and even absurd moral judgments. These judgments are highly, relevant not only to morality, but to law and politics as well. Examples are given from a number of domains, including risk regulation, punishment, reproduction and sexuality, and the act/omission distinction. In all of these contexts, rapid, intuitive judgments make a great deal of sense, but sometimes produce moral mistakes that are replicated in law and policy. One implication is that moral assessments ought not to lie made by appealing to intuitions about exotic cases and problems; those intuitions are particularly unlikely to be reliable. Another implication is that some deeply held moral judgments are unsound if they are products of moral heuristics. The idea of error-prone heuristics is especially controversial in the moral domain, where agreement on the correct answer may be hard to elicit; but in many contexts, heuristics are at work and they do real damage. Moral framing effects, including those in the context of obligations to future generations, are also discussed.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations
TL;DR: Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally.
Journal ArticleDOI
Heuristic Decision Making
TL;DR: Research indicates that individuals and organizations often rely on simple heuristics in an adaptive way, and ignoring part of the information can lead to more accurate judgments than weighting and adding all information, for instance for low predictability and small samples.
Journal ArticleDOI
Bad Apples, Bad Cases, and Bad Barrels: Meta-Analytic Evidence About Sources of Unethical Decisions at Work
TL;DR: This meta-analysis draws from over 30 years of research and multiple literatures to examine individual, moral issue, and organizational environment antecedents of unethical choice, providing empirical support for several foundational theories and painting a clearer picture of relationships characterized by mixed results.
Journal ArticleDOI
Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework.
TL;DR: A new framework for understanding and studying heuristics is proposed that can be classified according to a small set of effort-reduction principles, which reduces the redundancy in the field and helps to explicate the domain-general principles underlying Heuristics.
Journal ArticleDOI
Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism.
TL;DR: The authors find strong support for a disease-avoidance account of disgust and suggest that it offers a way to bridge the divide between concrete and ideational accounts of disgust.