Cognition 115 (2):207-224 (2010)

Abstract
Anthropologists have provided rich field descriptions of the norms and conventions governing behavior and interactions in small-scale societies. Here, we add a further dimension to this work by presenting hypothetical moral dilemmas involving harm, to a small-scale, agrarian Mayan population, with the specific goal of exploring the hypothesis that certain moral principles apply universally. We presented Mayan participants with moral dilemmas translated into their native language, Tseltal. Paralleling several studies carried out with educated subjects living in large-scale, developed nations, the Mayan participants judged harms caused as the means to a greater good as more forbidden than harms caused as a side-effect (i.e., side-effect bias). However, unlike these other populations living in large-scale societies, as well as a more educated and less rural Mayan comparison group, the target rural Mayan participants did not judge actions causing harm as worse than omissions (i.e., omission bias). A series of probes targeting the action-omission distinction suggest that the absence of an omission bias among the rural Mayan participants was not due to difficulties comprehending the dilemmas, using the judgment scale, or in attributing a greater causal role for actions over omissions. Thus, while the moral distinction between means and side-effect may be more universal, the moral distinction between actions and omission appears to be open to greater cross-cultural variation. We discuss these results in light of issues concerning the role of biological constraints and cultural variation in moral decision-making, as well as the limitations of such experimental, cross-cultural research.
Keywords trolley  cross-cultural  moral cognition
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.007
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,337
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No Luck for Moral Luck.Markus Kneer & Edouard Machery - 2019 - Cognition 182:331-348.
Moral Psychology: Empirical Approaches.John Doris & Stephen Stich - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

View all 27 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Is There a Right to Own a Gun?Michael Huemer - 2003 - Social Theory and Practice 29 (2):297-324.
Better Not to Have Children.Gerald K. Harrison & Julia Tanner - 2011 - Think, 10(27), 113-121 (27):113-121.
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and the Morality of Memory.Christopher Grau - 2006 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64 (1):119–133.
Moral Realism and Teleosemantics.Richard Joyce - 2001 - Biology and Philosophy 16 (5):723-31.
Group Risks, Risks to Groups, and Group Engagement in Genetics Research.Daniel M. Hausman - 2007 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (4):351-369.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-01-20

Total views
84 ( #138,640 of 2,508,046 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #276,895 of 2,508,046 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes