The article talks about a study conducted by Moore, Clark and Kane in 2008 that deals with how people response to moral dilemma specifically killing. The subjects of the study were asked how morally appropriate it is for an individual to kill someone in order to save the lives of others. In order to assess the respondents, they were given twenty-four dilemmas that were designed to vary in terms of the physical directness of the killing, personal effect to the subject, and inevitability of death and intentionality of the action (Moore, Clark & Kane, 2008). The respondents were measured based on their working-memory-capacity (WMC). Based on the results of their WMC, the researchers were able to determine the respondents’ stand on killing. They concluded that people who have high WMC found certain types of killing appropriate compared to the ones who scored low (Moore, Clark & Kane, 2008). The WMC is the independent variable in the study while the likeliness to approving to killing is the dependent variable.
One of the most notable take away from the study is in terms of people’s perception about both morality and killing. This can be linked to the ethics of utilitarianism which suggest that an action is morally acceptable/ right if its benefit the greater population. This ethical provision argues that an action is right if it promotes happiness. In the case of morality of killing, people are open to killing for as long as the ending is that others benefit from it. This places morality in a more objective paradigm that depends on the circumstances. It may be difficult for some critics to agree with the findings of the study because the conservatism of some cultures. But the study is a good step in understanding how people’s view of morality change over time.
Reference:
Moore A, Clark B & Kane M (2008). Who Shalt Not Kill? Individual Differences in Working
Memory Capacity, Executive Control and Moral Judgement. Psychological Science
