IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/18779.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ends versus Means: Kantians, Utilitarians, and Moral Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Bénabou, Roland
  • Falk, Armin
  • Henkel, Luca

Abstract

Choosing what is morally right can be based on the consequences (ends) resulting from the decision – the Consequentialist view – or on the conformity of the means involved with some overarching notion of duty – the Deontological view. Using a series of experiments, we investigate the overall prevalence and the consistency of consequentialist and deontological decision-making, when these two moral principles come into conflict. Our design includes a real-stakes version of the classical trolley dilemma, four novel games that induce ends-versus-means tradeoffs, and a rule-following task. These six main games are supplemented with six classical self-versus-other choice tasks, allowing us to relate consequential/deontological behavior to standard measures of prosociality. Across the six main games, we find a sizeable prevalence (20 to 44%) of nonconsequentialist choices by subjects, but no evidence of stable individual preference types across situations. In particular, trolley behavior predicts no other ends-versus-means choices; which moral principle prevails appears to be context-dependent. In contrast, we find a substantial level of consistency across self-versus-other decisions, but individuals’ degree of prosociality is unrelated to how they choose in ends-versus-means tradeoffs.

Suggested Citation

  • Bénabou, Roland & Falk, Armin & Henkel, Luca, 2024. "Ends versus Means: Kantians, Utilitarians, and Moral Decisions," CEPR Discussion Papers 18779, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:18779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP18779
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel L. Chen & Martin Schonger, 2022. "Social preferences or sacred values? Theory and evidence of deontological motivations," Post-Print hal-03894046, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alger, Ingela & Rivero-Wildemauwe, José Ignacio, 2024. "Doing the right thing (or not) in a lemons-like situation: on the role of social preferences and Kantian moral concerns," CEPR Discussion Papers 19048, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Alger, Ingela & Rivero-Wildemauwe, José Ignacio, 2024. "Doing the right thing (or not) in a lemons-like situation: on the role of social preferences and Kantian moral concerns," IAST Working Papers 24-161, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    3. Wang, Bo & Yang, Zihan & Le Hoa Pham, Thi & Deng, Nana & Du, Heran, 2023. "Can social impacts promote residents’ pro-environmental intentions and behaviour: Evidence from large-scale demand response experiment in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    altruism;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:18779. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.