Liane Young

So in these two cases, there is a conflict between the intention of the agent and the outcome of the agent's action. And so we can ask our volunteer participants, for their moral judgments of both the person, the agent performing the action, and also the action itself, whether this action is morally permissible or morally forbidden.

And using these kinds of scenarios and these kinds of moral judgment scales, we can get a sense for the extent to which different people rely on information about intentions to make their moral judgments. So you and I, for instance, could have very different views about how bad it is to accidentally poison a coworker.

And using these kinds of scenarios and these kinds of moral judgment scales, we can get a sense for the extent to which different people rely on information about intentions to make their moral judgments. So you and I, for instance, could have very different views about how bad it is to accidentally poison a coworker.

And using these kinds of scenarios and these kinds of moral judgment scales, we can get a sense for the extent to which different people rely on information about intentions to make their moral judgments. So you and I, for instance, could have very different views about how bad it is to accidentally poison a coworker.

And sort of depending on the circumstances, there could be a situation in which there's just no way she could have known maybe somebody swapped the sugar and the poison and she had the best of intentions. And so those are cases where there's a lot of flexibility for individual variation in moral judgments. And we can apply that same reasoning to the case of a failed attempt to cause harm too.

And sort of depending on the circumstances, there could be a situation in which there's just no way she could have known maybe somebody swapped the sugar and the poison and she had the best of intentions. And so those are cases where there's a lot of flexibility for individual variation in moral judgments. And we can apply that same reasoning to the case of a failed attempt to cause harm too.

And sort of depending on the circumstances, there could be a situation in which there's just no way she could have known maybe somebody swapped the sugar and the poison and she had the best of intentions. And so those are cases where there's a lot of flexibility for individual variation in moral judgments. And we can apply that same reasoning to the case of a failed attempt to cause harm too.

Some people might focus more on the neutral outcome, the fact that nothing bad happened at all, whereas other folks might focus a lot more on the fact that this person just tried to poison their coworker and that's very, very bad.

Some people might focus more on the neutral outcome, the fact that nothing bad happened at all, whereas other folks might focus a lot more on the fact that this person just tried to poison their coworker and that's very, very bad.

Some people might focus more on the neutral outcome, the fact that nothing bad happened at all, whereas other folks might focus a lot more on the fact that this person just tried to poison their coworker and that's very, very bad.

So we've run a number of studies now using brain imaging techniques to look at how people's brains are responding as they're making moral judgments of these kinds of cases. And so what we found in one study was that a brain region called the right temporal parietal junction, which is right above and behind your right ear, processes information about people's intentions.

So we've run a number of studies now using brain imaging techniques to look at how people's brains are responding as they're making moral judgments of these kinds of cases. And so what we found in one study was that a brain region called the right temporal parietal junction, which is right above and behind your right ear, processes information about people's intentions.

So we've run a number of studies now using brain imaging techniques to look at how people's brains are responding as they're making moral judgments of these kinds of cases. And so what we found in one study was that a brain region called the right temporal parietal junction, which is right above and behind your right ear, processes information about people's intentions.

And what we found was that the more an individual's right temper pridal junction responds as they are making these moral judgments, the more they are using information about innocent intentions to let the person who caused harm by accident off the hook.

And what we found was that the more an individual's right temper pridal junction responds as they are making these moral judgments, the more they are using information about innocent intentions to let the person who caused harm by accident off the hook.

And what we found was that the more an individual's right temper pridal junction responds as they are making these moral judgments, the more they are using information about innocent intentions to let the person who caused harm by accident off the hook.

And so we see this correlation between brain activity in this region that tracks intention information and the moral judgments that people are making of accidental harms.

And so we see this correlation between brain activity in this region that tracks intention information and the moral judgments that people are making of accidental harms.

And so we see this correlation between brain activity in this region that tracks intention information and the moral judgments that people are making of accidental harms.

In addition to using brain imaging, which helps us to track what brains are doing as people are making moral judgments, we've also used a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS for short, to temporarily disrupt activity in this particular brain region, the right temporoparietal junction, to see what effect that has on the moral judgments that people make.