Situational power moderates the influence of Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement values on behavior in ultimatum bargaining

We examined the interactive effects of personal values and situational power on proposer and responder behavior in an ultimatum bargaining game. The current literature suggests that situational power could moderate the influence of personal values on behavior. For proposers (N = 107), high scores on the Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement value dimension predicted higher proposals, but only among participants told that they were in a powerful position. For responders (N = 95), high scores on the Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement value dimension predicted accepting smaller proposals, but again only among participants told that they were in a powerful position. Our results support the idea that high situational power elicits behavior more consistent with one’s standing on the Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement value dimension.     

Time and moral judgment

Do moral judgments hinge on the time available to render them? According to a recent dual-process model of moral judgment, moral dilemmas that engage emotional processes are likely to result in fast deontological gut reactions. In contrast, consequentialist responses that tot up lives saved and lost in response to such dilemmas would require cognitive control to override the initial response. Cognitive control, however, takes time. In two experiments, we manipulated the time available to arrive at moral judgments in two ways: by allotting a fixed short or large amount of time, and by nudging people to answer swiftly or to deliberate thoroughly. We found that faster responses indeed lead to more deontological responses among those moral dilemmas in which the killing of one to save many necessitates manhandling an innocent person and in which this action is depicted as a means to an end. Thus, our results are the first demonstration that inhibiting cognitive control through manipulations of time alters moral judgments.     

Gross gods and icky atheism: Disgust responses to rejected religious beliefs

Disgust is an emotional response that helps to maintain and protect physical and spiritual purity by signaling contamination and motivating the restoration of personal cleanliness. In the present research we predicted that disgust may be elicited by contact with outgroup religious beliefs, as these beliefs pose a threat to spiritual purity. Two experiments tested this prediction using a repeated taste-test paradigm in which participants tasted and rated a drink before and after copying a passage from an outgroup religion. In Experiment 1, Christian participants showed increased disgust after writing a passage from the Qur'an or Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, but not a control text. Experiment 2 replicated this effect, and also showed that contact with an ingroup religious belief (Christians copying from the Bible) did not elicit disgust. Moreover, Experiment 2 showed that disgust to rejected beliefs was eliminated when participants were allowed to wash their hands after copying the passage, symbolically restoring spiritual cleanliness. Together, these results provide evidence that contact with rejected religious beliefs elicits disgust by symbolically violating spiritual purity. Implications for intergroup relations between religious groups is discussed, and the role of disgust in the protection of beliefs that hold moral value.     

Authoritarianism,Social Dominance,and Other Roots of Generalized Prejudice

The search for the personological roots of generalized prejudice (or ethnocentrism) began with the authoritarian personality, but in recent years, the twin constructs of right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation have been widely treated as the dual processes that lead to generalized prejudice. However, studies conducted for this article show that other constructs, notably empathy and principled moral reasoning, contribute important additional variance. Whereas authoritarianism and social dominance positively predict generalized prejudice, empathy and principled moral reasoning are related negatively to it. For the final study, a structural model of these relationships was tested. To fully understand individual differences in the propensity for generalized prejudice, it is necessary to move beyond the dual processes union of authoritarianism and social dominance.     

Developing an understanding of the literature relating to the moral development of people with intellectual disabilities

Recent reviews of moral development theory (Gibbs, Basinger, Grime, & Snarey, 2007) demonstrate that revisionist theoretical perspectives have cross cultural validity, but moral development in relation to people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) has not been considered within this literature. A structured review of the published literature relating to children, adolescents and adults with IDs, and moral development was carried out. Twenty studies meeting the inclusion criteria were found. The review indicated that people with IDs may not progress through the developmental stages of moral reasoning as quickly as typically developing peers, or reach the more advanced stages. This difference from non-disabled peers tends to disappear if groups are matched on some measure of cognitive ability. However, the studies are fraught with methodological problems and there is a need for further research, given the theoretical developments within the area of moral development, including the evidence of a relationship between moral development and anti-social behaviour amongst typically developing children and adolescents.     

牟宗三"实践的智慧学"探求诠论

对哲学作为“实践的智慧学”的探求是牟宗三后期哲学思考的核心。这一探索,开启了牟宗三中国哲学与康德哲学双向诠释的基本视域,也拓出了道德形而上学体系建构的理论地平。“实践的智慧学”诠释具有独特的理论内涵,也隐含了牟氏道德形上学自我批判与超越的思想线索。     

Moral foundations,worldviews, moral absolutism and belief in conspiracy theories

In the present research, we examined whether individual differences in basic moral concerns might be related to a greater endorsement of conspiracy theories. Building on the notion that conspiracy theories often deal with super‐individual relevant events in which a group perspective is central, we proposed that individual differences in moral concerns pertaining to group‐ and community‐concerns (i.e., binding moral foundations) rather than to individual well‐being (i.e., individualising moral foundations) would be positively associated with conspiracy beliefs. We further hypothesised that such relations would be totally mediated by beliefs in a dangerous world and by embracing moral absolutism. We found support for these predictions in two community samples (Ns: 319; 514). Theoretical implications were discussed.     

Towards a structural ownership condition on moral responsibility

In this paper, I propose and defend a structural ownership condition on moral responsibility. According to the condition I propose, an agent owns a mental item if and only if it is part of or is partly grounded by a coherent set of psychological states. As I discuss, other theorists have proposed or alluded to conditions like psychological coherence, but each proposal is unsatisfactory in some way. My account appeals to narrative explanation to elucidate the relevant sense of psychological coherence.     

Hard incompatibilism and the participant attitude

Following P. F. Strawson, a number of philosophers have argued that if hard incompatibilism is true, then its truth would undermine the justification or value of our relationships with other persons. In this paper, I offer a novel defense of this claim. In particular, I argue that if hard incompatibilism is true, we cannot make sense of: the possibility of promissory obligation, the significance of consent, or the pro tanto wrongness of paternalistic intervention. Because these practices and normative commitments are central to our relationships as we currently conceive of them, it follows that hard incompatibilism has radically revisionary conclusions.     

On the determinants of other-regarding behavior: Field tests of the moral foundations questionnaire☆,☆☆,,

This paper examines moral foundations as a predictor of other-regarding behavior outside a laboratory setting. We link responses to the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) with direct measures of other-regarding behavior in two studies. In both studies, moral foundations (as measured by the MFQ) predict other-regarding behavior. Study 1 finds the return rate of a follow-up survey is positively predicted by individualizing foundations and negatively predicted by binding foundations, particularly authority. Study 2 finds the relationships between moral foundations and donations to pre-selected charities are highly sensitive to the inclusion of a veterans charity in the choice set. Individualizing foundations positively predict donations in non-veterans conditions, while loyalty (positively) and authority (negatively) predict donations in veterans conditions.