King's College London

Research portal

Your Money or Your Life: Comparing judgments in trolley problems involving economic and emotional harms, injury, and death

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Natalie Gold ; Briony D. Pulford ; Andrew M. Colman

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)213-233
Number of pages21
JournalECONOMICS AND PHILOSOPHY
Volume29
Issue numberSpecial Issue 02
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2013

Documents

King's Authors

Abstract

There is a long-standing debate in philosophy about whether it is morally permissible to harm one person in order to prevent a greater harm to others and, if not, what is the moral principle underlying the prohibition. Hypothetical moral dilemmas are used in order to probe moral intuitions. Philosophers use them to achieve a reflective equilibrium between intuitions and principles, psychologists to investigate moral decision-making processes. In the dilemmas, the harms that are traded off are almost always deaths. However, the moral principles and psychological processes are supposed to be broader than this, encompassing harms other than death. Further, if the standard pattern of intuitions is preserved in the domain of economic harm, then that would open up the possibility of studying behavior in trolley problems using the tools of experimental economics. We report the results of two studies designed to test whether the standard patterns of intuitions are preserved when the domain and severity of harm are varied. Our findings show that the difference in moral intuitions between bystander and footbridge scenarios is replicated across different domains and levels of physical and non-physical harm, including economic harms.

Download statistics

No data available

View graph of relations

© 2015 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454