@article{ref1,
title="Moral choice when harming is unavoidable",
journal="Psychological science",
year="2020",
author="Berman, Jonathan Z. and Kupor, Daniella",
volume="ePub",
number="ePub",
pages="ePub-ePub",
abstract="Past research suggests that actors often seek to minimize harm at the cost of maximizing social welfare. However, this prior research has confounded a desire to minimize the negative impact caused by one's actions (harm aversion) with a desire to avoid causing any harm whatsoever (harm avoidance). Across six studies (N = 2,152), we demonstrate that these two motives are distinct. When decision-makers can completely avoid committing a harmful act, they strongly prefer to do so. However, harming cannot always be avoided. Often, decision-makers must choose between committing less harm for less benefit and committing more harm for more benefit. In these cases, harm aversion diminishes substantially, and decision-makers become increasingly willing to commit greater harm to obtain greater benefits. Thus, value trade-offs that decision-makers refuse to accept when it is possible to completely avoid committing harm can suddenly become desirable when some harm must be committed.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0956-7976",
doi="10.1177/0956797620948821",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797620948821"
}