Overriding Moral Intuitions – Does It Make Us Immoral? Dual-Process Theory of Higher Cognition Account for Moral Reasoning

Moral decisions are considered as an intuitive process, while conscious reasoning is mostly used only to justify those intuitions. This problem is described in few different dual-process theories of mind, that are being developed e.g. by Frederick and Kahneman, Stanovich and Evans. Those theories recently evolved into tri-process theories with a proposed process that makes ultimate decision or allows to paraformal processing with focal bias.. Presented experiment compares the decision patterns to the implications of those models. In presented study participants (n=179) considered different aspects of trolley dilemma or its footbridge version and decided after that. Results show that in the control group 70% of people decided to use the lever to change tracks for the running trolley, and 20% chose to push the fat man down the tracks. In contrast, after experimental manipulation almost no one decided to act. Also the decision time difference between dilemmas disappeared after experimental manipulation. The result supports the idea of three co-working processes: intuitive (TASS), paraformal (reflective mind) and algorithmic process. Keywords—Moral reasoning, moral decision, reflection, trolley problem, dual-process theory of reasoning, tri-process theory of cognition. I. DUAL-PROCESSING IN MORAL REASONING ORAL decisions are the topic for debate since long time. In last 20 years the discussion is refurbished anew thanks to empirical study of those. Classical approach to moral judgments requires people to think consciously about the dilemma in order to say its decision was moral. If they don’t consider any other option than the chosen one, than how could they be moral? Philosophers while describing morality are proposing that every moral decision has its reasons and motives [1]. The argument „I stole the bread because I was hungry” explains only the motive of breaking the rule, but doesn’t give a reason to do so, thus the action is understandable, still morally unacceptable. This view makes a moral judgment a process, in which reasons and motives have to be considered in respect to some rules. This makes moral judgment a conscious process, M. Bialek is with the Kozminski University, Jagiellońska 57/59; 03-301 Warsaw, Poland (phone: +48-792-090-230; fax: +48 22-519-22-47; e-mail: [email protected]). S. J. Handley is with the School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] based on some formal rules and procedures. In opposition, psychologists in their recent empirical studies are more interested in description of decision made by people. One of examples of this descriptive approach to morality is Haidt`s Social Intuitionist Model (SIM; [2] – [3]), in which moral judgment is predominantly intuitive, driven primarily by automatic emotional responses that are effortless and produced by unconscious processes. According to the SIM, reflection and reasoning typically serve to rationalize moral judgments that were previously made intuitively. So, if moral decision is mostly based of intuition, how does the reflection operate? Plenty of experimental data was collected to answer this question. First of all, the more time we have the more utilitarian our decisions are. Hertwig and Sutter [4] argued, that more time allows us to override intuitive responses instead of relying just on them. Paxton, Ungar and Green [5] increased utilitarian responding by inducing subjects to be more reflective by completing the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) prior to responding to moral dilemmas. Framing can also be a crucial issue as well for moral decisions. Others [6] stated that that the most accessible rule influences willingness to intervene within moral dilemmas. In summary, people can undo their intuitive responses with conscious and effortful processing. They just don’t use it all the time in standard situations.