Although this is yet another study about how human beings differ from some "rational" ideal, it doesn't conclude that we are irrational. Rather it seems to give us pause for thought about utilitarianism.
I think people are mostly right to have counter-utilitarian intuitions. Utilitarinism automatically places the the reasoner in the position of an omniscient fairy-empress how knows what is good for everyobody and can act on it.
But nobody is really in that situation. We are interacting parts in a enourmous system. We affect other people, and we adapt to the effects that others have on us.
All this works better if we obey certain rough and ready rules of right and wrong and respect each other rather vaguely defined rights. Evolution has given us a moral sense that encourages just that. It isn't perfect, but it works a lot better than pretending to be a fairy-empress.
I think people are mostly right to have counter-utilitarian intuitions. Utilitarinism automatically places the the reasoner in the position of an omniscient fairy-empress how knows what is good for everyobody and can act on it.
But nobody is really in that situation. We are interacting parts in a enourmous system. We affect other people, and we adapt to the effects that others have on us.
All this works better if we obey certain rough and ready rules of right and wrong and respect each other rather vaguely defined rights. Evolution has given us a moral sense that encourages just that. It isn't perfect, but it works a lot better than pretending to be a fairy-empress.