无处不在的伤害:二元论视角下的道德判断

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00128

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

道德二元论认为人际伤害是道德认知的典型模板.道德判断由规范违反,消极情感,感知到的伤害结合产生, 并经由二元比较与二元完型, 完成从下至上,从上至下的认知加工.道德失声现象的产生源于混淆了主客观伤害; 电车难题剥离了道德二元模型, 有趣但可能不符合普遍的道德认知; 不同领域的道德判断皆可在二元论的框架下得到解释.未来的研究可以考虑:意图与痛苦影响道德判断的实证; 跨文化研究的开展; 统一认知系统与模块化认知系统的辩证; 伤害的人际与非人际划分以及其他相关因素的检验.

关键词: 道德判断, 道德二元论, 认知模板, 道德失声, 电车难题

Abstract:

The Theory of Dyadic Morality (TDM) suggests that interpersonal harm is a typical cognitive template regarding morality. The moral judgment is a combination of normative violation, negative emotion, and perceived harm. Through dyadic comparison and dyadic completion, moral judgment completes the bottom-up and top-down cognitive processing. Sometimes the moral dumbfounding phenomenon occurs if someone mistakes the perceived harm to the objective harm. The Trolley Problem is interesting but may not be in line with the prevailing moral perception as it strips away the typical cognitive template. We believe that moral judgments in different fields can be explained in the framework of TDM. Future moral judgments research adopting the TDM framework needs to consider the below aspects: seek more evidence supporting that intention and suffering affect moral judgements, conduct cross-cultural studies to generalize the dyadic moral cognitive template, inspect the unified cognitive system and the modular cognitive system dialectically, differentiate interpersonal and non-interpersonal harm, and test other related factors.

Key words: moral judgment, The Theory of Dyadic Morality, cognitive template, moral dumbfounding, The Trolley Problem

中图分类号:

B849: C91

詹泽, 吴宝沛. 无处不在的伤害:二元论视角下的道德判断[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(1): 128-140.

Ze ZHAN, Baopei WU. Ubiquitous harm: Moral judgment in the perspective of the theory of dyadic morality[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(1): 128-140.

参考文献

1	段蕾, 莫书亮, 范翠英, 刘华山 . (2012). 道德判断中心理状态和事件因果关系的作用:兼对道德判断双加工过程理论的检验. 心理学报,44(12), 1607-1617.
2	李占星, 朱莉琪 . (2015). 道德情绪判断与归因:发展与影响因素. 心理科学进展,23(6), 990-999.
3	塔西佗 . (1981). 塔西佗《编年史》 (王以铸, 崔妙因译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
4	王鹏, 方平, 姜媛 . (2011). 道德直觉背景下的道德决策:影响因素探究. 心理科学进展,19(4), 573-579.
5	吴宝沛, 张雷 . (2012). 厌恶与道德判断的关系. 心理科学进展,20(2), 309-316.
6	谢熹瑶, 罗跃嘉 . (2009). 道德判断中的情绪因素——从认知神经科学的角度进行探讨. 心理科学进展,17(6), 1250-1256.
7	杨青松 . (2013). 时间距离对道德违规行为判断的影响及其作用机制(博士学位论文). 湖南师范大学.
8	喻丰, 彭凯平, 韩婷婷, 柴方圆, 柏阳 . (2011). 道德困境之困境——情与理的辩争. 心理科学进展,19(11), 1702-1712.
9	张国清 . (2013). 罗尔斯难题: 正义原则的误读与批评. 中国社会科学, 39(10),22-40.
10	张琨, 方平, 姜媛, 于悦, 欧阳恒磊 . (2014). 道德视野下的内疚. 心理科学进展,22(10), 1628-1636.
11	张梦圆, 苑明亮, 寇彧 . (2016). 论西方道德心理研究的新综合取向: 道德基础理论. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), 253(1), 50-59.
12	Ames D.L., &Fiske S.T . (2015). Perceived intent motivates people to magnify observed harms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, of the United States of America, 112(12), 3599-3605.
13	Atkinson Q.D., & Bourrat P. (2011). Beliefs about god, the afterlife and morality support the role of supernatural policing in human cooperation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(1), 41-49.
14	Barrett H. C., Bolyanatz A., Crittenden A. N., Fessler D. M. T., Fitzpatrick S., Gurven M ., et al. Laurence, S. (2016). Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variation in the role of intentions in moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(17), 4688-4693.
15	Berniūnas R., Dranseika V., & Sousa P . (2016). Are there different moral domains? Evidence from Mongolia. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19(3), 275-282.
16	Bj?rklund F., Haidt J., & Murphy S . (2000). Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason. Department of Psychology. Lund University.
17	Bleske-rechek A., Nelson L. A., Baker J. P., Remiker M. W., & Brandt S. J . (2010). Evolution and the trolley problem: People save five over one unless the one is young, genetically related, or a romantic partner. Journal of Social, 4(3), 115-127.
18	Bloom P., & Jarudi I. (2006). The Chomsky of morality. Nature, 443(7114), 909-910.
19	Buchtel E. E., Guan Y., Peng Q., Su Y., Sang B., Chen S. X., & Bond M. H . (2015). Immorality east and west: Are immoral behaviors especially harmful, or especially uncivilized?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1382-1394.
20	Cameron C. D., Lindquist K. A., & Gray K . (2015). A constructionist review of morality and emotions: No evidence for specific links between moral content and discrete emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 371-394.
21	Chakroff A., Dungan J., & Young L . (2013). Harming ourselves and defiling others: What determines a moral domain? Plos One, 8(9), e74434.
22	Chakroff A., Russell P. S., Piazza J., & Young L . (2017). From impure to harmful: Asymmetric expectations about immoral agents. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 201-209.
23	Darwin, C. (1871/1981). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24	DelGaizo A.L., &Falkenbach D.M . (2008). Primary and secondary psychopathic-traits and their relationship to perception and experience of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(3), 206-212.
25	Descioli P., & Kurzban R. (2009). Mysteries of morality. Cognition, 112(2), 281-299.
26	Duke A.A., & Bègue L. (2015). The drunk utilitarian: Blood alcohol concentration predicts utilitarian responses in moral dilemmas. Cognition, 134, 121-127.
27	Eskine K. J., Kacinik N. A., & Prinz J. J . (2011). A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22(3), 295-299.
28	Fadda R., Parisi M., Ferretti L., Saba G., Foscoliano M., Salvago A., & Doneddu G . (2016). Exploring the role of theory of mind in moral judgment: The case of children with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 523.
29	Fehr B., &Russell J.A . (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 425-438.
30	FeldmanHall O., Dalgleish T., Evans D., Navrady L., Tedeschi E., & Mobbs D . (2016). Moral chivalry: Gender and harm sensitivity predict costly altruism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 542-551.
31	Gleichgerrcht E., & Young L. (2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. Plos One, 8(4), e60418.
32	Godin G., Conner M., & Sheeran P . (2005). Bridging the intention-behaviour gap: The role of moral norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 497-512.
33	Graham J., Haidt J., Koleva S., Motyl M., Iyer R., Wojcik S. P., & Ditto P. H . (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47(12), 55-130.
34	Gray H. M., Gray K., & Wegner D. M . (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619.
35	Gray K. . (2012). The power of good intentions: Perceived benevolence soothes pain, increases pleasure, and improves taste. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 639-645.
36	Gray K., &Keeney J.E . (2015). Impure or just weird? Scenario sampling bias raises questions about the foundation of morality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 859-868.
37	Gray K., Schein C., & Cameron C. D . (2017). How to think about emotion and morality: Circles, not arrows. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 41-46.
38	Gray K., Schein C., & Ward A. F . (2014). The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 143(4), 1600-1615.
39	Gray K., Waytz A., & Young L . (2012). The moral dyad: A fundamental template unifying moral judgment. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 206-215.
40	Gray K., &Wegner D.M . (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 505-520.
41	Gray K., &Wegner D.M . (2010). Blaming god for our pain: Human suffering and the divine mind. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 7-16.
42	Gray K., &Wegner D.M . (2011). To escape blame, don't be a hero — Be a victim. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 516-519.
43	Gray K., Young L., & Waytz A . (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101-124.
44	Greene J., & Haidt J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517-523.
45	Greene J. D., Morelli S. A., Lowenberg K., Nystrom L. E., & Cohen J. D . (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107(3), 1144-1154.
46	Greene J. D., Nystrom L. E., Engell A. D., Darley J. M., & Cohen J. D . (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400.
47	Guglielmo S., &Malle B.F . (2017). Information- acquisition processes in moral judgments of blame. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(7), 957-971.
48	Haidt J. . (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.
49	Haidt J. . (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998-1002.
50	Haidt J., Graham J. , & Ditto, P. The Volkswagen of moral psychology. Retrieved October 28, 2015, from & Ditto, P. The Volkswagen of moral psychology. Retrieved October 28, 2015, from
51	Haidt J., Mccauley C., & Rozin P . (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(5), 701-713.
52	Hamlin J. K., Wynn K., & Bloom P . (2010). 3-month-olds show a negativity bias in their social evaluations. Developmental Science, 13(6), 923-929.
53	Hamlin J. K., Wynn K., Bloom P., & Mahajan N . (2011). How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, 108(50), 19931-19936.
54	Hofmann W., Wisneski D. C., Brandt M. J., & Skitka L. J . (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345(6202), 1340-1343.
55	Hutcherson C.A., &Gross J.J . (2011). The moral emotions: A social-functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 719-737.
56	Kawai N., Kubo K., & Kubo-Kawai N . (2014). “Granny dumping”: Acceptability of sacrificing the elderly in a simulated moral dilemma. Japanese Psychological Research, 56(3), 254-262.
57	Laurin K., &Plaks J.E . (2014). Religion and punishment: Opposing influences of orthopraxy and orthodoxy on reactions to unintentional acts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(7), 835-843.
58	Levine E.E., &Schweitzer M.E . (2014). Are liars ethical? On the tension between benevolence and honesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 107-117.
59	Levine E.E., &Schweitzer M.E . (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88-106.
60	Margoni F., & Surian L. (2017). Children’s intention-based moral judgments of helping agents. Cognitive Development, 41, 46-64.
61	Marsh A.A., &Cardinale E.M . (2014). When psychopathy impairs moral judgments: Neural responses during judgments about causing fear. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(1), 3-11.
62	Miller R. M., Hannikainen I. A., & Cushman F. A . (2014). Bad actions or bad outcomes? Differentiating affective contributions to the moral condemnation of harm. Emotion, 14(3), 573-587.
63	Monroe A.E., &Malle B.F . (2017). Two paths to blame: Intentionality directs moral information processing along two distinct tracks. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 146(1), 123-133.
64	Nichols S. . (2002). Norms with feeling: Towards a psychological account of moral judgment. Cognition, 84(2), 221-236.
65	Nobes G., Panagiotaki G., & Bartholomew K. J . (2016). The influence of intention, outcome and question-wording on children's and adults' moral judgments. Cognition, 157, 190-204.
66	Park G., Kappes A., Rho Y ., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2016). At the heart of morality lies neuro-visceral integration: Lower cardiac vagal tone predicts utilitarian moral judgment. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(10), 1588-1596.
67	Peter D., Kelly A., & Robert K . (2012). Omissions and byproducts across moral domains. PloS One, 7(10), e46963.
68	Pratt M. W., Golding G., Hunter W., & Sampson R . (2010). Sex differences in adult moral orientations. Journal of Personality, 56(2), 373-391.
69	Rai T.S., &Fiske A.P . (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118(1), 57-75.
70	Rai T.S., &Holyoak K.J . (2010). Moral principles or consumer preferences? Alternative framings of the trolley problem. Cognitive Science, 34(2), 311-321.
71	Rizzo M. T., Cooley S., Elenbaas L., & Killen M . (2018). Young children’s inclusion decisions in moral and social-conventional group norm contexts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 165, 19-36.
72	Royzman E., Atanasov P., Landy J. F., Parks A., & Gepty A . (2014). Cad or mad? Anger (not disgust) as the predominant response to pathogen-free violations of the divinity code. Emotion, 14(5), 892-907.
73	Royzman E. B., Kim K., & Leeman R. F . (2015). The curious tale of Julie and Mark: Unraveling the moral dumbfounding effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(4), 296-313.
74	Rozin P., Lowery L., Imada S., & Haidt J . (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 574-586.
75	Schein C., & Gray K. (2015). The unifying moral dyad: Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1147-1163.
76	Schein C., & Gray K. (2016). Moralization and harmification: The dyadic loop explains how the innocuous becomes harmful and wrong. Psychological Inquiry, 27(1), 62-65.
77	Schein C., & Gray K. (2017). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32-70.
78	Schein C., Ritter R. S., & Gray K . (2016). Harm mediates the disgust-immorality link. Emotion, 16(6), 862-876.
79	Schnall S., Haidt J., Clore G. L., & Jordan A. H . (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1096-1109.
80	Scott S. E., Inbar Y., & Rozin P . (2016). Evidence for absolute moral opposition to genetically modified food in the United States. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 315-324.
81	Shweder R. A., Much, N. C, Mahapatra, M., & Park L . (1997). The "Big Three" of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the "Big Three" explanations of suffering. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health(pp. 119-169). New York: Routledge.
82	Sytsma J., & Machery E. (2012). The two sources of moral standing. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(3), 303-324.
83	Theriault J., Waytz A., Heiphetz L., & Young L . (2017). Examining overlap in behavioral and neural representations of morals, facts, and preferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 146(11), 1586-1605.
84	Tisak M.S., &Jankowski A.M . (1996). Societal rule evaluations: Adolescent offenders' reasoning about moral, conventional, and personal rules. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 22(3), 195-207.
85	Trivers R.L . (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57.
86	Wagemans F., Brandt M. J., & Zeelenberg M . (2017). Disgust sensitivity is primarily associated with purity-based moral judgments. Emotion, 18(2), 277-289.
87	van der Toorn J., Nail P. R., Liviatan I., & Jost J. T . (2014). My country, right or wrong: Does activating system justification motivation eliminate the liberal-conservative gap in patriotism?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 50-60.
88	Welch M., &Bryan J.L . (2000). Moral campaigns, authoritarian aesthetics, and escalation: An examination of flag desecration in the post-Eichman era. Journal of Crime & Justice, 23(1), 25-45.
89	Wisneski D.C., &Skitka L.J . (2017). Moralization through moral shock: Exploring emotional antecedents to moral conviction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(2), 139-150.
90	Wright P. J., Tokunaga R. S., & Bae S . (2014). Pornography consumption and us adults' attitudes toward gay individuals' civil liberties, moral judgments of homosexuality, and support for same-sex marriage: Mediating and moderating factors. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 79-107.
91	Young L., & Tsoi L. (2013). When mental states matter, when they don't, and what that means for morality. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 7(8), 585-604.

[1]	张银花, 李红, 吴寅. 计算模型在道德认知研究中的应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1042-1055.
[2]	严瑜, 李彤. 工作场所不文明行为受害者向实施者反转的机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(7): 1307-1318.
[3]	胡晓檬, 喻丰, 彭凯平. 文化如何影响道德?文化间变异、文化内变异与多元文化的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2018, 26(11): 2081-2090.
[4]	李明晖, 饶俪琳. 解释水平视角下的道德判断[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(8): 1423-1430.
[5]	叶红燕;张凤华. 从具身视角看道德判断[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(8): 1480-1488.
[6]	吴宝沛;高树玲. 道德虚伪：一种机会主义的适应策略[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(6): 926-934.
[7]	沈汪兵;刘昌. 道德伪善的心理学研究述评[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(5): 745-756.
[8]	吴宝沛;张雷. 厌恶与道德判断的关系[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(2): 309-316.
[9]	喻丰;彭凯平;韩婷婷;柴方圆;柏阳. 道德困境之困境—— 情与理的辩争[J]. 心理科学进展, 2011, 19(11): 1702-1712.
[10]	杜晓晓; 郑全全. 诺布效应及其理论解释[J]. 心理科学进展, 2010, 18(01): 91-96.
[11]	谢熹瑶;罗跃嘉. 道德判断中的情绪因素——从认知神经科学的角度进行探讨[J]. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17(06): 1250-1256.
[12]	王美芳. 艾森伯格的亲社会道德理论简介[J]. 心理科学进展, 1996, 14(02): 32-36.