In Favor of Clear Thinking: Incorporating Moral Rules into a Wise Cost-benefit Analysis

Max   Bazerman; Joshua D. Greene

Article | Perspectives on Psychological Science | March 2010

In Favor of Clear Thinking: Incorporating Moral Rules into a Wise Cost-benefit Analysis

by Max Bazerman and Joshua D. Greene

Abstract

Bennis, Medin, and Bartels (2009) have contributed an interesting paper on the comparative benefit of moral rules versus cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Many of their specific comments are accurate, useful, and insightful. At the same time, we believe they have misrepresented CBA and have reached a set of conclusions that are misguided and, if adopted wholesale, potentially dangerous. Overall, they offer wise suggestions for making CBA more effective, rather than eliminating CBA as a decision-making tool.

Keywords: Cost vs Benefits; Moral Sensibility; Adoption; Performance Effectiveness; Decision Making; Management Analysis, Tools, and Techniques;

Format: Print

4 pages

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Bazerman, Max, and Joshua D. Greene. "In Favor of Clear Thinking: Incorporating Moral Rules into a Wise Cost-benefit Analysis." Perspectives on Psychological Science 5, no. 2 (March 2010): 209–212.

Working Paper | 2019

Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good

Karen Huang, Joshua D. Greene and Max Bazerman

The “veil of ignorance” is a moral reasoning device designed to promote impartial decision-making by denying decision-makers access to potentially biasing information about who will benefit most or least from the available options. Veil-of-ignorance reasoning was originally applied by philosophers and economists to foundational questions concerning the overall organization of society. Here we apply veil-of-ignorance reasoning in a more focused way to specific moral dilemmas, all of which involve a tension between the greater good and competing moral concerns. Across six experiments (N = 5,785), three pre-registered, we find that veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good. Participants first engaged in veil-of-ignorance reasoning about a specific dilemma, asking themselves what they would want if they did not know who among those affected they would be. Participants then responded to a more conventional version of the same dilemma with a moral judgment, a policy preference, or an economic choice. Participants who first engaged in veil-of-ignorance reasoning subsequently made more utilitarian choices in response to a classic philosophical dilemma, a medical dilemma, a real donation decision between a more vs. less effective charity, and a policy decision concerning the social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. These effects depend on the impartial thinking induced by veil-of-ignorance reasoning and cannot be explained by a simple anchoring account, probabilistic reasoning, or generic perspective-taking. These studies indicate that veil-of-ignorance reasoning may be a useful tool for decision-makers who wish to make more impartial and/or socially beneficial choices.

Keywords: policy-making; procedural justice; Ethics; Decision Making; Fairness;

Citation:

Huang, Karen, Joshua D. Greene, and Max Bazerman. "Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good." Working Paper, July 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Read Now

Faculty & Research

In Favor of Clear Thinking: Incorporating Moral Rules into a Wise Cost-benefit Analysis

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author