Dual-process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: a reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie

In low-conflict impersonal dilemmas, people are more likely to make utilitarian judgments supported by the conscious-controlled process.

“When people are confronted with a low-conflict impersonal dilemma (such as Trolley problem), they are more likely to make a utilitarian judgment (sacrifice the few to save the many), which supported by conscious-controlled process.”

In design scenarios, participants adopt a role that aligns more closely with the conscious-controlled process.

“When they engage in the design of moral algorithms for AVs, they adopt a role that aligns more closely with the conscious-controlled process in Joshua Greene’s dual-process theory of moral judgment (Greene, 2009).”

Greene's theory suggests that moral decisions stem from automatic-emotional and conscious-controlled processes.

“Greene’s theory suggested that our moral decisions stem from one of two distinct cognitive processes, namely, automatic-emotional process and conscious-controlled process (Greene, 2009).”

Greene's theory shows that people's deeds and deliberative moral judgments can sometimes conflict.

“Briefly, Greene’s theory shows that people’s deed and deliberative moral judgments can be sometimes conflict with each other.”

The automatic-emotional process is rapid and unconscious, leading to intuitive actions and judgments, while the conscious-controlled process is slower and involves deliberate reasoning.

“The automatic-emotional process is rapid and unconscious, leading to intuitive actions and judgments, while the conscious-controlled process is slower and involves deliberate reasoning.”

The differences between design and purchase can be explained by Greene's dual-process theory of moral judgment.

“From the perspective of moral psychology, it may be explained by Joshua Greene’s dual-process theory of moral judgment.”