One approach would be
‘1. do you have a moral philosophy?’ ‘2. how do you describe your moral philosophy? _’
An alternative would be to use plain-language e.g. What guides your moral decisions? (the consequences of my actions/the rules i’m following/the person i want to be) with the ability to check multiple boxes.
the results would still have some doubt because people would be more likely to say that consequences are important to their decisions when they know they’re being asked about effective altruism but that part is less avoidable.
“What guides your moral decisions? (the consequences of my actions/the rules i’m following” wouldn’t distinguish between people with consequentialist or non-consequentialist intuitions, if they weren’t familiar with philosophy.
If people said their moral decisions came from wanting to make as many people as possible happier, then that would reveal a pretty consequentialist intuition.
The complication is that the distinctive aspect of consequetialism is that it makes this the only motive or consideration, and it’s hard to discover what the general public think about this as they’re not used to breaking morality down into all its component factors to find an exhaustive list of their motives or considerations.
One approach would be ‘1. do you have a moral philosophy?’ ‘2. how do you describe your moral philosophy? _’
An alternative would be to use plain-language e.g. What guides your moral decisions? (the consequences of my actions/the rules i’m following/the person i want to be) with the ability to check multiple boxes.
the results would still have some doubt because people would be more likely to say that consequences are important to their decisions when they know they’re being asked about effective altruism but that part is less avoidable.
“What guides your moral decisions? (the consequences of my actions/the rules i’m following” wouldn’t distinguish between people with consequentialist or non-consequentialist intuitions, if they weren’t familiar with philosophy.
If people said their moral decisions came from wanting to make as many people as possible happier, then that would reveal a pretty consequentialist intuition.
The complication is that the distinctive aspect of consequetialism is that it makes this the only motive or consideration, and it’s hard to discover what the general public think about this as they’re not used to breaking morality down into all its component factors to find an exhaustive list of their motives or considerations.