Conference: Motivated Moral Decisions: Target Acceptability in Warfare

Dr. Moncrieff presented at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Annual Conference 'HBES Virtually Everywhere’. View the recorded presentation here.

Abstract

Who do we think deserves to be targeted in an armed conflict? Altruistic theories of morality propose that perspective-taking and empathy explain conflict norms. An alternative interpretation of the evidence, i.e., a deterrence reading of it, holds that actions are more likely to be morally condemned when it runs counter to the condemner’s enlightened self-interest. The subjective condemnation prompts greater alertness to the potential threat faced, while grounding the motivation to pursue welfare-enhancing behaviors, such as coordinating with others to benefit from the deterrence potential of such a grouping. In a preregistered experiment, participants were more likely to criticize combatant actions that were indicative of greater potential personal risk. How dangerous, unreasonable, and aggressive the perpetrator was assessed to be mattered for how the action would be moralized. The negative moral appraisal was not correlated to the harmfulness of the action per se, but to the magnitude of the potential threat perceived by the participant. Moral intuitions shaped by self-interest probably explain much of the content of warfare norms. If accurate, this should trigger some reconceptualization of existing legal frameworks such as the ‘membership approach’ to targeting enemy combatants, the ‘revolving-door’ nature of direct participation in hostilities, and the benevolence for soldiers ‘hors du combat’.