The Re-examination of the “Up Close and Personal” Hypothesis: Based on the Investigation of Ethical Experiment in Moral Dilemma

doi:10.15936/j.cnki.1008-3758.2022.04.002

Abstract

Abstract: In order to verify the “up close and personal” hypothesis of the trolley problem in the Chinese context， we conduct a repetitive study of Greene's experiment by using the moral dilemma test to explore the effects of factors of spatial distance and personalness on moral judgment. The results show that physical contact， personal force and spatial proximity all have significant experimental effects on moral acceptability scores. In the comparison of the frequency of moral choice， the deontological and utilitarian choices in each group are significantly different， and the utilitarian choices in the four groups also show significant differences. On the whole， with the weakening of personal effect and the extension of spatial distance， moral acceptance evaluation and moral choice tend to be utilitarian. Therefore， the “up close and personal” hypothesis is confirmed in the Chinese cultural context， but there are also cross-cultural inconsistencies.

Key words: “up close and personal” hypothesis; trolley problem; moral judgment; cross-culture; empirical ethics

CLC Number:

N031
B82

ZHAO Zhihui. The Re-examination of the “Up Close and Personal” Hypothesis: Based on the Investigation of Ethical Experiment in Moral Dilemma[J]. Journal of Northeastern University(Social Science), 2022, 24(4): 9-15.

References

[1]Greene J D，Sommerville R B，Nystrom L E，et al. An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment［J］. Science， 2001，293:2105-2108.
[2]Greene J D. Beyond Point-and-Shoot Morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro)Science Matters for Ethics［J］. Ethics， 2014，124(4):695-726.
[3]Gong H，Medin D L. Construal Levels and Moral Judgment: Some Complications［J］. Judgment and Decision Making， 2012，7(5):628-638.
[4]Haidt J. The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: a Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment［J］. Psychological Review， 2001，108(4):814-834.
[5]Cushman F，Hauser Y M. The Role of Conscious Reasoning and Intuition in Moral Judgment Testing Three Principles of Harm［J］. Psychological Science， 2006，17(12):1082-1089.
[6]Eyal T，Liberman N，Trope Y. Judging Near and Distant Virtue and Vice［J］. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology， 2008，44(4):1204-1209.
[7]Greene J D，Cushman F A，Stewart L E，et al. Pushing Moral Buttons: the Interaction Between Personal Force and Intention in Moral Judgment［J］. Cognition， 2009，111(3):364-371.
[8]Aguilar P，Brussino S，Fernández-Dols J M. Psychological Distance Increases Uncompromising Consequentialism［J］. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology， 2013，49(3):449-452.
[9]Pellizzoni S，Siegal M，Surian L. The Contact Principle and Utilitarian Moral Judgments in Young Children［J］. Developmental Science， 2010，13(2):265-270.
[10]Iliev R I，Sachdeva S，Medin D L. Moral Kinematics: the Role of Physical Factors in Moral Judgments［J］. Memory & Cognition， 2012，40(8):1387-1401.
[11]叶浩生. 具身认知: 认知心理学的新取向［J］. 心理科学进展， 2010，18(5):705-710.
[12]Greene J D，Nystrom L E，Engell A D，et al. The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment［J］. Neuron， 2004，44(2):389-400.
[13]Nagel J，Waldmann M R. Deconfounding Distance Effects in Judgments of Moral Obligation［J］. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning， Memory， and Cognition， 2013，39(1):237-252.
[14]Amit E，Greene J D. You See， the Ends Don't Justify the Means: Visual Imagery and Moral Judgment［J］. Psychological Science， 2012，23(8):861-868.
[15]Giacomantonio M，Dreu C，Shalvi S，et al. Psychological Distance Boosts Value-behavior Correspondence in Ultimatum Bargaining and Integrative Negotiation［J］. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology， 2010，46(5):824-829.
[16]Ahlenius H，Tnnsj T. Chinese and Westerners Respond Differently to the Trolley Dilemmas［J］. Journal of Cognition and Culture， 2012，12(3/4):195-201.
[17]Awad E，Dsouza S，Shariff A，et al. Universals and Variations in Moral Decisions Made in 42 Countries by 70000 Participants［J］. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences， 2020，117(5):2332-2337.
[18]彭凯平，喻丰. 道德的心理物理学: 现象、机制与意义［J］. 中国社会科学， 2012(12):28-45.
[19]涂可国. 儒家行为责任伦理论要［J］. 孔子研究， 2019(5):48-60.
[20]Nichols S，Mallon R. Moral Dilemmas and Moral Rules［J］. Cognition， 2006，100(3):530-542.
[21]黄光国. 儒家关系主义: 文化反思与典范重建［M］. 北京: 北京大学出版社， 2006:178.