Not Our Fault: Judgments of Apathy Versus Harm Toward Socially Proximal Versus Distant Others

Michael Gilead, Yair Ben David, Yael Ecker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

The current research aimed to delineate the moral intuitions that underlie apathy toward the suffering of socially distant others. Past research has shown that people endorse in-group-focused morality, according to which the fate of socially distant others is discounted, and harm-focused morality, according to which the omission of care is viewed less negatively as compared to the commission of harm. In the current study, we investigated how these two moral principles interact, by examining whether increased social distance differentially attenuates the severity of moral judgments concerning acts of apathy and harm. The results of five studies show that judgments concerning the omission of care are dependent on social distance, whereas judgments concerning the commission of harm are not. The findings challenge normative theories of morality that deny the legitimacy of “positive rights” and positive theories of morality that see harm and care as two end points of the same psychological continuum.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)568-575
Number of pages8
JournalSocial Psychological and Personality Science
Volume9
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jul 2018

Keywords

  • care
  • harm
  • moral foundations theory
  • moral judgment
  • political ideology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Not Our Fault: Judgments of Apathy Versus Harm Toward Socially Proximal Versus Distant Others'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this