» Articles » PMID: 31719198

Veil-of-ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2019 Nov 14
PMID 31719198
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The "veil of ignorance" is a moral reasoning device designed to promote impartial decision making by denying decision makers access to potentially biasing information about who will benefit most or least from the available options. Veil-of-ignorance reasoning was originally applied by philosophers and economists to foundational questions concerning the overall organization of society. Here, we apply veil-of-ignorance reasoning in a more focused way to specific moral dilemmas, all of which involve a tension between the greater good and competing moral concerns. Across 7 experiments ( = 6,261), 4 preregistered, we find that veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good. Participants first engaged in veil-of-ignorance reasoning about a specific dilemma, asking themselves what they would want if they did not know who among those affected they would be. Participants then responded to a more conventional version of the same dilemma with a moral judgment, a policy preference, or an economic choice. Participants who first engaged in veil-of-ignorance reasoning subsequently made more utilitarian choices in response to a classic philosophical dilemma, a medical dilemma, a real donation decision between a more vs. less effective charity, and a policy decision concerning the social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. These effects depend on the impartial thinking induced by veil-of-ignorance reasoning and cannot be explained by anchoring, probabilistic reasoning, or generic perspective taking. These studies indicate that veil-of-ignorance reasoning may be a useful tool for decision makers who wish to make more impartial and/or socially beneficial choices.

Citing Articles

Self-interest, positional concerns and distributional considerations in healthcare preferences.

Daniel A, van Exel J, Chorus C Eur J Health Econ. 2023; 25(3):423-446.

PMID: 37212891 PMC: 10973069. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01597-4.


Using the Veil of Ignorance to align AI systems with principles of justice.

Weidinger L, McKee K, Everett R, Huang S, Zhu T, Chadwick M Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023; 120(18):e2213709120.

PMID: 37094137 PMC: 10160973. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2213709120.


Boosting the impact of charitable giving with donation bundling and micromatching.

Caviola L, Greene J Sci Adv. 2023; 9(3):eade7987.

PMID: 36652510 PMC: 9848424. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.ade7987.


Resolving responsibility gaps for lethal autonomous weapon systems.

Smith P Front Big Data. 2022; 5:1038507.

PMID: 36561376 PMC: 9766649. DOI: 10.3389/fdata.2022.1038507.


Public opinion towards global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines - Data from Germany and the United States.

Klumpp M, Monfared I, Vollmer S Sci Data. 2022; 9(1):583.

PMID: 36151098 PMC: 9508102. DOI: 10.1038/s41597-022-01700-z.


References
1.
Greene J, Sommerville R, Nystrom L, Darley J, Cohen J . An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 2001; 293(5537):2105-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.1062872. View

2.
Everett J, Faber N, Savulescu J, Crockett M . The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2018; 79:200-216. PMC: 6185873. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004. View

3.
Galinsky A, Moskowitz G . Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 78(4):708-24. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.708. View

4.
Norton M, Ariely D . Building a Better America-One Wealth Quintile at a Time. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 6(1):9-12. DOI: 10.1177/1745691610393524. View

5.
Patil I, Zucchelli M, Kool W, Campbell S, Fornasier F, Calo M . Reasoning supports utilitarian resolutions to moral dilemmas across diverse measures. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020; 120(2):443-460. DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000281. View