There is by now a large literature that refers to judgments endorsing sacrificial acts in classical moral dilemmas Rigosertib research buy as ‘utilitarian.’ We recognize that this terminology is strongly entrenched. But the results of the present study, and the conceptual considerations we have spelled out above and in other work (Kahane, 2012, Kahane, 2014, Kahane and Shackel, 2010 and Kahane et al., 2012), strongly suggest that this terminology is highly misleading. First,

it describes a tendency that is specific to an extremely unusual moral context in a way that suggests a generality that is not really there: what the current literature describes as a ‘utilitarian’ bias is in fact associated with greater rejection of paradigmatic utilitarian views and attitudes in other moral contexts. Second, it implies that ‘utilitarian judgment’ selleck chemicals llc and ‘utilitarian decision-making’ refer to a unitary psychological phenomenon, which may even be based in a specific neural subsystem (Greene et al., 2004) and which can be investigated by studying sacrificial dilemmas. Our results cast doubt on this assumption and suggest that, in the psychology of non-philosophers, different aspects of a utilitarian moral

outlook often come apart, and may even be in some tension. Finally, this terminology may be misleading even in the narrow context of sacrificial dilemmas. While choosing to push someone off a footbridge to save five is in line with a utilitarian outlook, it does not automatically follow that such a choice is driven by genuine utilitarian considerations. In fact, in the

present study we found that such judgments are often driven by an outlook that is diametrically opposed to a truly utilitarian ethics. Earlier research mafosfamide has suggested that ‘utilitarian’ judgment in standard moral dilemmas is uniquely associated with effortful deliberation and explicit reasoning (Greene et al., 2004). This association that has been taken to show that such judgments are more ‘rational,’ and therefore speak in favor a utilitarian approach to ethics (Greene, 2008 and Singer, 2005). A growing body of research, however, has begun to tie these very same ‘utilitarian’ judgments to antisocial traits such as psychopathy and reduced empathic concern (Bartels and Pizarro, 2011, Glenn et al., 2010, Koenigs et al., 2012 and Wiech et al., 2013), which are far less flattering connections. But true utilitarians should neither cheer the supposed tie between ‘utilitarian’ judgments and ‘rational’ deliberation, nor feel discomfort about the more sinister association with psychopathy—for, contrary to appearances, so-called ‘utilitarian’ response to sacrificial moral dilemmas appear to have little to do with genuine utilitarianism. This work was supported in part by a University Award from the Wellcome Trust (#WT087208MF), by the Wellcome Trust (#08604/Z/08/Z), by the Oxford Martin School, and by the Volkswagen Foundation. Jim A.C.