Abstract

This study investigates the influence of evaluative judgments, specifically regarding an individual's moral character, on judgments of health and disease. Though it might seem that assessments judgments of health and disease should be impervious to evaluative judgments, two hypotheses suggest that health and disease judgments might be influenced by evaluative judgments: the "naturalization hypothesis" which centers on our inclination to assign blame, and the "pathologization hypothesis" rooted in the belief of a just world. These hypotheses lead to opposing predictions about how someone with a perceived negative moral character might have their condition categorized. Employing a fictional vignette and the methodologies of experimental philosophy, our research provides evidence in favor of the "pathologization hypothesis." While this phenomenon likely carries real-world implications, especially in healthcare, it also has potential for offering insights into the dynamics of medicalization and stigma.