Moral dumbfounding: when intuition finds no reason

316 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Sacrifice One For the Good of Many? People Apply Different Moral Norms to Human and Robot Agents (2015, background): “[41] and some counter evidence exists [6], [8].”
The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. (2001, background): “Haidt and Hersh (2001) found the same thing when they interviewed conservatives and liberals about sexual morality issues, including homosexuality, incest, and unusual forms of masturbation.”
Sexual morality: The cultures and emotions of conservatives and liberals. (2001, background): “This code was applied when participants showed marked confusion and incoherence; for example, by frequent stuttering, saying " I don't know, " or reversing and negating their own statements in mid-sentence (Haidt et al., 1999).”
Approach, Ability, Aftermath: A Psychological Process Framework of Unethical Behavior at Work (2015, background): “At the end of the study, seventy percent of participants maintained their original position, without a single articulable reason for it (Haidt et al., 2000).”
Religiosity, Political Orientation, and Consequentialist Moral Thinking (2014, methodology): “The latter vignette was adapted from Haidt et al. (2000), whereas the former was developed by the authors to parallel the cannibalism vignette used by Haidt et al., but with the improvement that the act was set in a context where the cannibalistic act was understood to be a normative practice.”