By Peter DeScioli, Maxim Massenkoff, Alex Shaw, Michael Bang Petersenand Robert Kurzban.
"Abstract
Previous research emphasizes people's dispositions as a source of differences in moral views. We investigate another source of moral disagreement, self-interest. In three experiments, participants played a simple economic game in which one player divides money with a partner according to the principle of equality (same payoffs) or the principle of equity (payoffs proportional to effort expended). We find, first, that people's moral judgment of an allocation rule depends on their role in the game. People not only prefer the rule that most benefits them but also judge it to be more fair and moral. Second, we find that participants' views about equality and equity change in a matter of minutes as they learn where their interests lie. Finally, we find limits to self-interest: when the justification for equity is removed, participants no longer show strategic advocacy of the unequal division. We discuss implications for understanding moral debate and disagreement."
Related posts:
Conspicuous Consumption, Conspicuous Virtue, Thorstein Veblen (and Adam Smith, too!)
Is altruism a result of selfishness?
Do you have to be selfish to make more money?
Does collective self-deception mask selfish behavior?
Why Doing Good Makes It Easier to Be Bad
Want to be happy and successful? Try compassion
Why being kind to others is good for your health (and that can include donating money)
The Dalai Lama Says It Is Sometimes OK To Be Selfish
No comments:
Post a Comment