Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology

Psychological Review 125 (2):131-164 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Recent research has relied on trolley-type sacrificial moral dilemmas to study utilitarian versus nonutili- tarian modes of moral decision-making. This research has generated important insights into people’s attitudes toward instrumental harm—that is, the sacrifice of an individual to save a greater number. But this approach also has serious limitations. Most notably, it ignores the positive, altruistic core of utilitarianism, which is characterized by impartial concern for the well-being of everyone, whether near or far. Here, we develop, refine, and validate a new scale—the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale—to dissociate individual differences in the ‘negative’ (permissive attitude toward instrumental harm) and ‘positive’ (impartial concern for the greater good) dimensions of utilitarian thinking as manifested in the general population. We show that these are two independent dimensions of proto-utilitarian tendencies in the lay population, each exhibiting a distinct psychological profile. Empathic concern, identification with the whole of humanity, and concern for future generations were positively associated with impartial beneficence but negatively associated with instrumental harm; and although instrumental harm was associated with subclinical psychopathy, impartial beneficence was associated with higher religiosity. Importantly, although these two dimensions were independent in the lay population, they were closely associated in a sample of moral philosophers. Acknowledging this dissociation between the instrumental harm and impartial beneficence components of utilitarian thinking in ordinary people can clarify existing debates about the nature of moral psychology and its relation to moral philosophy as well as generate fruitful avenues for further research.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-01-11
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
On Virtue Ethics.Hursthouse, Rosalind
What Do Philosophers Believe?Bourget, David & Chalmers, David J.
Reasons and Persons.Margolis, Joseph

View all 74 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Worth Living or Worth Dying? The Views of the General Public About Allowing Disabled Children to Die.Brick, Claudia; Kahane, Guy; Wilkinson, Dominic; Caviola, Lucius & Savulescu, Julian
Impartiality and Infectious Disease: Prioritizing Individuals Versus the Collective in Antibiotic Prescription.Dao, Bernadine; Douglas, Thomas; Giubilini, Alberto; Savulescu, Julian; Selgelid, Michael & Faber, Nadira S.
‘Is It Better Not to Know Certain Things?’: Views of Women Who Have Undergone Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing on its Possible Future Applications.Bowman-Smart, Hilary; Savulescu, Julian; Mand, Cara; Gyngell, Christopher; Pertile, Mark D.; Lewis, Sharon & Delatycki, Martin B.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
257 ( #16,970 of 48,961 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
60 ( #10,479 of 48,961 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.