Core values versus common sense: consequentialist views appear less rooted in morality.

Area of Science:

• Social Psychology
• Moral Psychology
• Communication Studies

Background:

• Philosophical traditions emphasize utilitarian consequences in moral reasoning.
• Audience perception of ethical arguments influences reactions to speakers.
• Laypeople's understanding of morality may differ from philosophical definitions.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate lay perceptions of moralization in consequentialist versus deontological arguments.
• To examine how perceived moralization affects audience judgments of speaker authenticity and commitment.
• To understand the implications for public expression of moral opinions.

Main Methods:

• Conducted five experiments using political views and organizational policies.
• Included real-world examples, such as State of the Union quotations.
• Compared audience perceptions of consequentialist, deontological, and unjustified arguments.

Main Results:

• Consequentialist arguments were perceived as less moralized than deontological arguments.
• Consequentialist arguments were sometimes seen as less moralized than those with no explicit justification.
• Perceived moralization influenced judgments of speaker commitment and authenticity.

Conclusions:

• Laypeople do not equate consequentialist reasoning with moral conviction, contrary to some philosophical views.
• The way an argument is framed (consequentialist vs. deontological) impacts its perceived morality.
• Findings have practical implications for effective public communication of moral stances.