Researchers at MIT and Harvard have shown that people use a type of reasoning known as universalization to help them make moral decisions in certain situations. This strategy is best for dealing with social dilemmas known as “threshold problems,” where harm can occur if everyone or a large number of people takes a certain action.
In some situations you ask, “What if everyone did this?” is a common strategy for judging whether an action is right or wrong.
Imagine one day you are riding the train and you decide to climb the turnstile so as not to pay the fare. This is unlikely to have a major impact on the financial well-being of your local transportation system. But now you’re wondering, “What if everyone did this?” The result is very different – the system would likely go bankrupt and no one would be able to take the train.
Moral philosophers have long believed that this type of reasoning, known as universalization, is the best way to make moral decisions. But do ordinary people spontaneously apply this type of moral judgment in their daily life?
In a study of several hundred people, WITH Harvard University researchers have confirmed that people use this strategy in certain situations called “threshold problems.” These are social dilemmas in which harm can arise when anyone or a large number of people performs a certain action. The authors developed a mathematical model that quantitatively predicts the likely judgments. They also showed for the first time that children as young as 4 years old can use this type of reasoning to judge right and wrong.
“This mechanism seems to be a way that we can spontaneously find out what action I can take sustainably in my community,” says Sydney Levine, postdoc at MIT and Harvard and lead author of the study.
Other authors of the study are Max Kleiman-Weiner, postdoc at MIT and Harvard; Laura Schulz, MIT professor for cognitive science; Joshua Tenenbaum, professor of Computational Cognitive Science at MIT and member of the MIT Center for Brain, Mind and Machines and Laboratory for Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence (CSAIL); and Fiery Cushman, an assistant professor of psychology at Harvard. The paper was published on October 2, 2020 in the Procedure of the National Academy of Sciences.
Judge morality
The concept of universalization has been included in philosophical theories for at least the 18th century. Universalization is one of several strategies that philosophers use to believe that people make moral judgments, along with result-based thinking and rule-based thinking. However, there are few psychological studies on universalization and many questions remain as to how often and under what circumstances this strategy is used.
To investigate these questions, the MIT / Harvard team asked their study participants to rate the morale of actions taken in situations where harm could be caused if too many people took the action. In one hypothetical scenario, John, a fisherman, is trying to decide whether to use a new, more efficient fish hook that will allow him to catch more fish. However, if every fisherman in his village opted for the new hook, there would soon be no more fish in the lake.
The researchers found that many subjects used universalization to assess John’s actions, and that their judgments depended on a variety of factors, including the number of people interested in using the new hook and the number of people who used it, which would cause an injury outcome.
To filter out the effects of these factors, the researchers created several versions of the scenario. In one case, no one in the village was interested in using the new hook, and in that scenario most participants found it acceptable for John to use it. However, when others in the village were interested but not using it, John’s decision to use it was judged morally wrong.
The researchers also found that they could use their data to create a mathematical model that explains how people take into account various factors, such as: For example, the number of people trying to take the action and the number of people taking it that would cause harm. The model accurately predicts how people’s judgments will change when these factors change.
In their most recent studies, the researchers created scenarios that they used to test the judgments of children between the ages of 4 and 11. One story presented a child who tried to pick up a stone from a path in a park to collect rocks. Children were asked to judge whether this was okay under two different circumstances: in one case only one child wanted a stone and in the other many other children wanted to take stones for their collections as well.
The researchers found that most children found it wrong to take a stone when everyone wanted, but it was permissible when there was only one child who wanted to. However, the children could not explain exactly why they made these judgments.
“The interesting thing is that we found that when you set this carefully controlled contrast, when the children are unable to articulate it, they use this calculation,” says Levine. “They can’t check what they’re doing and know what they’re doing and why, but they seem to be using the mechanism anyway.”
In future studies, the researchers hope to examine how and when the ability to use this type of reasoning develops in children.
Collective action
In the real world, there are many cases where universalization could be a good strategy for making decisions, but it is not necessary as there are already rules in place for those situations.
“There are many collective action problems in our world that can be solved by universalization, but they are already solved by government regulation,” says Levine. “We’re not relying on people to make that kind of argument, we’re just making it illegal to take the bus without paying.”
However, universalization can be useful in situations that arise suddenly, before government regulations or guidelines are in place. At the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, before many local governments started calling for masks in public places, people considering wearing masks might have wondered what would happen if everyone decided not to wear one.
The researchers now hope to investigate the reasons why people sometimes do not use universalization when it could be applicable, for example in combating climate change. One possible explanation is that people don’t have enough information about the potential harm that certain actions can cause, Levine says.
Reference: “The logic of universalization guides moral judgment” by Sydney Levine, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Laura Schulz, Joshua Tenenbaum and Fiery Cushman, October 2, 2020, Procedure of the National Academy of Sciences.
DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.2014505117
The research was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines.
