Moral judgment and decision making, contractualism and virtual bargaining

道德判断和决策、契约主义和虚拟讨价还价

• 批准号: 2444367
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Warwick
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2020 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2444367
• 关键词: Moral; judgment; decision; making; contractualism

Moral psychology attempts to understand the mechanisms that underlie moral judgment and decision making. Researchers in this area often appeal to normative theories from moral philosophy to construct descriptive accounts of morality (Bartels et al., 2015). Two schools of thought - consequentialism and deontology - have received particular attention in recent decades (Greene, 2013). Simply put, consequentialism bases the morality of an action on its consequences only. For deontology in contrast, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, independently of the consequences they bring about, depending on specific moral rules (Malle, 2021). A third influential family of theories - contractualism - has received much less attention in empirical work. Contractualism posits that morality is a matter of agreement and that "an act is morally permissible if all the parties relevantly affected by the act could reasonably agree to it (or at least, not reasonably reject it)" (Levine et al., 2018, p. 1). Typically contractualist concerns (e.g., agreement, consent, mutual interests) could be crucial to understand the psychological basis of morality. Virtual bargaining has been proposed as a specific form of contractualist reasoning. Virtual bargaining is a theory of social coordination which proposes that many of our social interactions can be understood as the result of virtual bargains or "agreements that social participants anticipate they would make, where they to engage in explicit bargaining" (Misyak et al., 2014, p. 512). This project uses experimental methods from psychology (e.g., moral dilemmas) and economics (e.g., economic games) to empirically investigate contractualist moral judgment and decision making and the role played by virtual bargaining processes in moral reasoning.

道德心理学试图理解道德判断和决策背后的机制。该领域的研究人员经常诉诸道德哲学中的规范理论来构建道德的描述性解释（Bartels et al., 2015）。近几十年来，结果论和道义论这两种思想流派受到了特别关注（Greene，2013）。简而言之，结果主义仅将行为的道德性建立在其后果之上。相比之下，对于道义论来说，某些行为本质上是对的或错的，与它们带来的后果无关，取决于特定的道德规则（Malle，2021）。第三个有影响力的理论家族——契约主义——在实证研究中受到的关注要少得多。契约论认为，道德是一个协议问题，并且“如果受该行为相关影响的所有各方都能合理地同意该行为（或者至少不合理地拒绝该行为），那么该行为在道德上是允许的”（Levine et al., 2018，第 1 页）。通常，契约论关注点（例如协议、同意、共同利益）对于理解道德的心理基础可能至关重要。虚拟讨价还价被认为是契约主义推理的一种具体形式。虚拟讨价还价是一种社会协调理论，它提出我们的许多社会互动可以被理解为虚拟讨价还价或“社会参与者预期他们会达成的协议，他们参与明确的讨价还价”的结果（Misyak等人， 2014 年，第 512 页）。该项目使用心理学（例如道德困境）和经济学（例如经济博弈）的实验方法来实证研究契约主义道德判断和决策以及虚拟讨价还价过程在道德推理中所扮演的角色。