
Study helps explain why we favour a black and white approach to morality - holigey
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-04-07-researchers-help-explain-why-we-favour-black-and-white-approach-morality
======
AnthonyMouse
I feel like the problem is that people hate contrived examples. "You have to
choose whether to kill one person to save five." Well, I don't want that
choice, so the first thing I'm going to do is look for alternatives that don't
kill anybody. In the hypothetical that isn't allowed but in real life it is. A
sufficiently clever person can in many cases figure out a way to save
everybody, and either way the person who tries is justifiably more valued than
the person who doesn't.

So what's wrong isn't choosing to save five people at the expense of one, it's
the easy acceptance of killing anyone as a reasonable option.

~~~
drdeca
I don't think it is impossible for a situation to occur where one has no
option that saves any of the five without killing the one.

Perhaps not any situation that ever has or ever will happen, but I don't think
that there is not any situation that ever could happen like that. And
therefore, while it might not have a high priority, I think it is a valid
question.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
The question lacks nuance; its black and white, more than people's supposed
morality. In reality, the World is complex. Maybe there isn't a way to save
everyone, but people aren't going to take your word for it. The real-world
answer is to look for a way. Ask black-and-white questions; get stupid, black-
and-white answers.

~~~
drdeca
Well, yeah, look for a way, and then, what do you do upon not finding one?

You either act, or you do not, but you must choose.

~~~
tim333
That assumes you only have a yes no choice. That's almost never the case in
real life.

~~~
drdeca
See "Perhaps not any situation that ever has or ever will happen, but I don't
think that there is not any situation that ever could happen like that [I.e. I
think that it is /possible/ for such a situation to happen.]. And therefore,
while it might not have a high priority, I think it is a valid question."

So, yes, I agree, such situations (where, upon looking, one finds no option
better than either of the two) would be extremely rare. I still think the
question of "If it does happen, what should you do?" is a valid one.

------
daodedickinson
It provides (or exhibits, or is indicative of [I'm not sure on any direction
of causality]) maximum motivation for (especially collective) action.

I don't know about anyone else, but the more I see in shades of grey, the more
I devolve into Hamlet-like indecision ("the best lack all conviction" is a
self-flattering way to put it).

------
tim333
I don't think you have to bring evolution into it to explain why people like
absolute moral rules. Take 'do not steal' vs maximise human happiness. Go with
the latter and someone will nick your kit and claim it was for social good.

------
stevetrewick
Disappointing to see such a supposedly august institution jumping on the
current 'science communication' bandwagon of trumpeting minor psych results
under clickbaity headlines. This is just trolling for REF impact points.

------
daniel-cussen
I'll admit I haven't and won't read the article. I would bother if it didn't
really bother me. I'll reply to the essay in itself that is the title. Really,
people favor black and white because of distrust. They don't trust others, or
even themselves, with what they evaluate as slippery slopes. Maybe you need to
differentiate. Maybe you can exercise good judgment and know when what.
People, in practice, do this. They'll never hit a person who has good reason
to be physically weak, unless the unthinkable and only reactable happens and
that person starts aggressing their child. And boom, hard and fast describes
the response, not the rules followed. And it doesn't count, and they don't
feel guilty. But talking about this is difficult.

Also, look at it from the perspective of debt. The concept and many realities
of debt permeate everything in modern life, especially morality. Black and
white is really red and black: what I mean is that the concepts of evil and
good :: heaven and hell :: serving and receiving interest are linked. Spending
leads to debt / Serving yourself is evil: in death, you'll fall to hell, which
is nothing other than payment for an unpayable debt that compounds faster than
one can serve it. And heaven is not only the opposite, but the counterpart
too: you have so many debtors paying you interest for all your good done or
goods sold you are living off the interest.

~~~
brongondwana
Downvoted because it's quite selfish to feel entitled to reply to an essay
based entirely on its title - because I _did_ read the essay, and you're
talking at a tangent about something that is interesting, but doesn't really
belong in this thread.

Because you're talking about people lying about their actual morals, even to
themselves - whereas the article is talking about how much people trust people
with different stated moral positions.

