Moral Choice When Harming Is Unavoidable.

Area of Science:

• Decision analysis
• Behavioral economics
• Moral psychology

Background:

• Prior research conflated harm aversion and harm avoidance.
• Actors may prioritize harm minimization over social welfare maximization.
• Distinguishing these motives is crucial for understanding decision-making.

Purpose of the Study:

• To differentiate between harm aversion and harm avoidance.
• To investigate how these motives influence choices when harm is unavoidable.
• To examine the conditions under which value trade-offs involving harm are accepted.

Main Methods:

• Six studies were conducted with 2,152 participants.
• Experimental designs manipulated the possibility of avoiding harm.
• Participants made choices between different levels of harm and benefit.

Main Results:

• Harm aversion and harm avoidance are distinct constructs.
• Decision-makers strongly prefer to completely avoid harm.
• When harm is unavoidable, harm aversion decreases, facilitating greater harm for greater benefits.

Conclusions:

• Harm avoidance is a primary motive when complete avoidance is possible.
• Value trade-offs involving harm become more acceptable when harm is unavoidable.
• Understanding the distinction is key for predicting behavior in complex ethical dilemmas.