Acceso usuarios
Sacrificial moral dilemmas require individuals to choose between allowing harm to several people or preventing this by actively causing harm to a smaller number of people. These dilemmas have been foundational in studying how people resolve conflicts between competing moral principles, with responses traditionally interpreted as reflecting either “utilitarian” concern for the greater good or “deontological” refusal to enact harm. Existing research relies almost exclusively on hypothetical scenarios. We confronted 794 participants across two studies with real-life consequential dilemmas involving minor but genuine physical harm. Participants decided whether to allow two confederates to receive painful electroshocks or shock a third confederate and provided motivations for their decisions. Study 1 manipulated physical proximity to potential targets, while Study 2 examined how the gender composition of potential targets influenced decisions. Moreover, each participant faced this choice twice, allowing us to examine how prior outcomes influence subsequent moral decisions. Results show that responses to traditional hypothetical dilemmas moderately predict real-life behavior. Physical proximity and target gender had no significant effects on actual choices. When confronting the dilemma a second time, approximately one third of participants switched their decision, primarily to distribute harm equitably across potential targets. Analysis of participants’ motivations reveals a diverse spectrum of moral considerations beyond utilitarian–deontological frameworks, including fairness concerns, responsibility avoidance, and beliefs about shared versus individual suffering. Our findings invite scholars to expand current theoretical models to better capture the nuanced ways people approach sacrificial trade-offs in consequential, real-world situations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
