Just as optical illusions can fool the eye to present a distorted image of reality, moral illusions can fool our decision-making ability, making us more selfish. But the results also show that we are more likely to vote for the good of all when taking part in democratic decisions.
From: Linköping University [in Sweden]
"We tend to use
what we can call a 'moral wiggle room' to justify selfish decisions. This means
that we can act selfishly in certain situations, without feeling that our
actions are morally wrong," says Kajsa Hansson, newly promoted doctor in economics
at Linköping University, with a thesis entitled Moral Illusions.
In the thesis, she
examines several aspects of what she terms 'moral illusions', and compares them
to optical illusions. She concludes that we can tweak our morals in some
situations to increase self-benefit.
"Fairness is in
the eye of the beholder. But I have used a broad definition of morality, and I
don't judge whether a certain type of fairness is good or bad. Instead, I use
the idea of whether a person experiences that they are not living up to their
own notion of good morality," says Kajsa Hansson.
Moral illusions mainly
arise in competitive situations when many people compete for the same rewards.
This is a consequence of psychological mechanisms that cause us to assess
fairness differently, depending on whether we are successful or not. This is
particularly the case when we lack information about the fairness of the
situation. When the brain attempts to fill in missing information, it may
create an image that does not match reality -- in the same way as occurs for an
optical illusion.
One example is how we
view losing. If we lose, we tend to blame it on that the playing field was not
level, or that the game was rigged. When we win, in contrast, we explain this
by our excellent playing skills. This tendency may describe why successful
people believe that the world is a meritocracy, and that economic inequalities
are thus fair.
Kajsa Hansson has also
investigated how we react to decisions when we can avoid information that may
encourage unselfish behaviour. In this case, again, our morality can be
tweaked, since we are reluctant to seek out more information that risks giving
us a bad conscience. Such information may force us to act unselfishly.
There is, however, one
situation in which moral illusions do not play a role -- when decisions are
taken democratically. This may be the case for decisions taken by the national
parliament, but it also applies in the committees of clubs, companies, etc.,
where several people are involved and take decisions collectively. This result
contradicts the currently accepted theory, which says that we become less moral
when the responsibility for a decision is shared among several people. This
phenomenon is known as the "diffusion of responsibility."
"When decisions
are taken democratically, there is always someone else we can blame, and
previous studies have shown that we become more selfish when the responsibility
for a decision is spread among several people. However, our results do not
support the idea that people become less moral when taking such decisions. In
fact, quite the opposite," says Kajsa Hansson.
In the study, Kajsa
Hansson and her colleagues carried out three experiments in which the
participants must choose whether to donate or claim money. In some experiments,
the decision was a democratic one between several participants; in others the
participants acted individually. The results showed that it was not possible to
see any selfish behaviour. Indeed, they showed that people tend to become more
generous in this scenario.
"Our results are
actually very good news. They suggest that we possess the insight that we take
decisions for others, and we act collectively. We can speculate that people
realise that we can contribute more to the common good when everyone
contributes," says Kajsa Hansson.
The thesis considers
decision-making in a broad perspective, and looks at how morality affects it.
Kajsa Hansson believes that it can help us understand each other better.
"We may not always
agree with everyone's interpretations of reality, but we can understand where
they come from."
The thesis has been
funded by the Lars Hierta Memorial Foundation and the Helge Ax:son Johnson
Foundation.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220914102248.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment