Learning from Consequences Shapes Reliance on Moral Rules vs. Cost-Benefit Reasoning

2023

Article

re

Many controversies arise from differences in how people resolve moral dilemmas by following deontological moral rules versus consequentialist cost-benefit reasoning (CBR). This article explores whether and, if so, how these seemingly intractable differences may arise from experience and whether they can be overcome through moral learning. We designed a new experimental paradigm to investigate moral learning from consequences of previous decisions. Our participants (N=387) faced a series of realistic moral dilemmas between two conflicting choices: one prescribed by a moral rule and the other favored by CBR. Critically, we let them observe the consequences of each of their decisions before making the next one. In one condition, CBR-based decisions consistently led to good outcomes, whereas rule-based decisions consistently led to bad outcomes. In the other condition, this contingency was reversed. We observed systematic, experience-dependent changes in people's moral rightness ratings and moral decisions over the course of just 13 decisions. Without being aware of it, participants adjusted how much moral weight they gave to CBR versus moral rules according to which approach produced better consequences in their respective experimental condition. These learning effects transferred to their subsequent responses to the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale, indicating genuine moral learning rather than task-specific effects. Our findings demonstrate the existence of rapid adaptive moral learning from the consequences of previous decisions. Individual differences in morality may thus be more malleable than previously thought.

@article{maier2023learning,
  title = {Learning from Consequences Shapes Reliance on Moral Rules vs. Cost-Benefit Reasoning},
  author = {Maier, M. and Cheung, V. and Bartos, F. and Lieder, F.},
  month = apr,
  year = {2023},
  doi = {10.31234/osf.io/gjf3h},
  month_numeric = {4}
}