When solving various kinds of moral problems, we can proceed either from a utilitarian point of view, which is result-oriented and consists of maximizing utility, or from a deontological one, which is action-oriented and consists of mandatory adherence to certain norms (including moral norms). For example, in the trolley dilemma, the first position justifies the killing of one innocent person to save many others, whereas the second position does not allow this and condemns any intentional infliction of harm on a person. However, not only thought experiments but many real-life situations can lead to the question of whether a human life should be sacrificed for some higher good. And it would be very interesting to see what choice is preferred by individuals who do not experience aversion to committing violence, have weakly expressed empathy, and possess other traits of psychopathy.
As we know, in the standard version of the trolley dilemma, a person must choose whether to redirect the trolley to a track where only one person is tied, or to do nothing, as a result of which the trolley will run over five people at once. A survey of 700 participants in a study showed that the choice in favor of taking action (sacrificing one for the benefit of many) was only slightly associated with traits of primary psychopathy (a person’s tendency toward callousness, lack of empathy, and a weak sense of guilt). However, in a modified version, where the participant had to decide whether to push a fat man off a bridge onto the tracks to stop the trolley, the choice in favor of this was strongly associated with all indicators of psychopathy. It seems that psychopathic individuals tend to believe that in this situation, killing the fat man is a completely justified action.
The study also found that individuals with higher psychopathy scores tend to have a desire to cause harm to people for the sake of achieving some higher good. Yet, at the same time, they do not strive to help in the impartial maximization of the well-being of as many people as possible. To be clear, it can be put this way: a psychopath is ready to accept human casualties and commit violence to achieve a higher good, but he would not help with his wallet, even if he possesses funds that are not very necessary to him and could significantly help many other people.
Additionally, participants were surveyed on a number of dilemmas from the CNI model, which assesses their sensitivity to consequences (C), moral norms (N), and preference for inaction over action (I). Naturally, higher psychopathy scores were associated with a greater tendency to make utilitarian rather than deontological decisions. To be more precise, according to the Levenson test, this result was significantly associated with indicators of primary psychopathy specifically, and only weakly with indicators of secondary psychopathy (reflecting emotional instability and the presence of psychological problems in a person). According to the triarchic model of psychopathy, it was associated with a person’s tendency toward meanness. And according to the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI), it was associated with egocentric impulsivity, fearless dominance, and cold-bloodedness.
It can be concluded that the more impaired an individual’s violence inhibition mechanism is—which in practice manifests as traits of primary psychopathy—the more they are inclined to make a utilitarian rather than a deontological choice. Human casualties and violence are justified for them if they believe that this will lead to some higher good for many people. At the same time, the interesting point is that they are not particularly inclined to sacrifice their own well-being for this purpose. In real life, this can easily be seen in the example of various kinds of dictators who pursued one ideology or another. At the same time, non-psychopathic individuals prefer to follow moral norms and not sacrifice human lives. They will not choose to intentionally cause harm to a person.
