Abstract
Is it permissible to harm one to save many? Classic moral
dilemmas are often defined by the conflict between a putatively rational response
to maximize aggregate welfare (i.e., the utilitarian judgment) and an emotional
aversion to harm (i.e., the non-utilitarian judgment). Here, we address two
questions. First, what specific aspect of emotional responding is relevant for
these judgments? Second, is this aspect of emotional responding selectively
reduced in utilitarians or enhanced in non-utilitarians? The results reveal a
key relationship between moral judgment and empathic concern in particular
(i.e., feelings of warmth and compassion in response to someone in distress).
Utilitarian participants showed significantly reduced empathic concern on an
independent empathy measure. These findings therefore reveal diminished
empathic concern in utilitarian moral judges.