What We Owe to Family: The Impact of Special Obligations on Moral Judgment

TLDR

Moral philosophy values impartiality, but it is unclear when partiality is morally valued. The studies examined whether information about special obligations to kin influences moral judgments. Helping a stranger is judged more morally good and trustworthy than helping kin, yet violating a perceived obligation to kin is judged more harshly, and these effects vary with the role’s impartiality.

Abstract

Although people often recognize the moral value of impartial behavior (i.e., not favoring specific individuals), it is unclear when, if ever, people recognize the moral value of partiality. The current studies investigated whether information about special obligations to specific individuals, particularly kin, is integrated into moral judgments. In Studies 1 and 2, agents who helped a stranger were judged as more morally good and trustworthy than those who helped kin, but agents who helped a stranger, instead of kin were judged as less morally good and trustworthy than those who did the opposite. In Studies 3 and 4, agents who simply neglected a stranger were judged as less morally bad and untrustworthy than those who neglected kin. Study 4 also demonstrated that the violation (vs. fulfillment) of perceived obligations underlaid all judgment patterns. Study 5 demonstrated boundary conditions: When occupying roles requiring impartiality, agents who helped a stranger instead of kin were judged as more morally good and trustworthy than agents who did the opposite. These findings illuminate the importance of obligations in structuring moral judgment.