The logic of universalization guides moral judgment

48Citations
Citations of this article
149Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

To explain why an action is wrong, we sometimes say, "What if everybody did that?" In other words, even if a single person's behavior is harmless, that behavior may be wrong if it would be harmful once universalized.We formalize the process of universalization in a computational model, test its quantitative predictions in studies of human moral judgment, and distinguish it from alternative models. We show that adults spontaneously make moral judgments consistent with the logic of universalization, and report comparable patterns of judgment in children. We conclude that, alongside other well-characterized mechanisms of moral judgment, such as outcome-based and rule-based thinking, the logic of universalizing holds an important place in our moral minds.

References Powered by Scopus

The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment

5806Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms: Research article

2519Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Collective action and the evolution of social norms

2403Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Large pre-trained language models contain human-like biases of what is right and wrong to do

167Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Computational ethics

36Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

ClarifyDelphi: Reinforced Clarification Questions with Defeasibility Rewards for Social and Moral Situations

15Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Levine, S., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Schulz, L., Tenenbaum, J., & Cushman, F. (2020). The logic of universalization guides moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(42), 26158–26169. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014505117

Readers over time

‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25020406080

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 56

64%

Researcher 19

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

7%

Lecturer / Post doc 6

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 43

64%

Social Sciences 9

13%

Neuroscience 8

12%

Philosophy 7

10%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 2
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 65

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0