Moral judgment is a tricky subject. For example, most people would agree that lying is immoral. However, most people would also agree that lying to Nazis about the location of Jewish families would be moral. New research sheds light on how people decide whether behavior is moral or immoral. The findings could serve as a framework for informing the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies.
Scientists proposed a model of moral
judgment, called the Agent Deed Consequence (ADC) model – and now we have the
first experimental results that offer a strong empirical corroboration of the
ADC model in both mundane and dramatic realistic situations. The ADC model
posits that people take three things into account when making a moral judgment:
the Agent, which is the character or intent of the person who is doing
something; the Deed, or what is being done; and the Consequence, or the outcome
that resulted from the deed.
“This approach allows us to
explain not only the variability in the moral status of lying, but also the
flip side: that telling the truth can be immoral if it is done maliciously and
causes harm,” Dubljević says. (1)
Difficult to see the morality behind
an action.
Because we always tend to see the tree
and not the forest.
What is here now will someday no
longer be.
What is today important will soon be
insignificant.
What is now ridiculous will soon be
essential.
What is true will eventually not be at
all.
A dirty man talking to God.
People laughing at him.
Asking him for the truth.
Requesting him to abide by the facts.
But they do not know the facts.
He does not answer.
For He doesn’t need to.
There is no agent.
Nor deed.
Nor consequence.
For the truth is not something to
reach.
But a veil we need to break through.
Look at that immoral man.
He is the One defining morality…
