Kahane retracted his old research---positive util fosters empathy.

The use of sacrificial dilemmas to study the contrast between utilitarian and deontological judgments has dominated research in moral psychology. But although the psychological source of this major ethical dispute is of great interest, sacrificial dilemmas are a limited tool for studying proto-utilitarian tendencies in the lay population (Kahane, 2015; Kahane et al., 2015; Kahane & Shackel, 2010). In this paper we have introduced the 2D model of utilitarian psychology, a new theoretical framework for studying such tendencies. The 2D model treats utilitarian moral decision-making not as an all-or-nothing category but as a matter of degree, and as involving two largely independent ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ dimensions. On this basis, we developed the OUS, a new scale that is both philosophically rigorous and empirically driven, and which attempts to address concerns about sacrificial dilemmas and existing scales. Our preliminary application of the scale already demonstrates how the distinction between impartial beneficence and instrumental harm can help to clarify the relationship between a utilitarian moral outlook and a range of other psychological constructs and measures while generating important new avenues for further research. Importantly, our results strongly suggest that, in the context of the lay population, utilitarian decision-making does not constitute a unitary psychological phenomenon.

The division between impartial beneficence and instrumental harm may also have important practical implications. Ethicists who wish to promote wider acceptance of utilitarian moral approaches in the general population may need to divide their efforts. Those individuals who are more likely to endorse instrumental harm, or generally be willing to dismiss or discount traditional moral rules, may at the same time be indifferent—or even hostile—to the overarching moral aim of impartially maximizing the good of all sentient beings. Conversely, drawing public attention to the negative side of utilitarianism—one upshot of the widespread identification of utilitarianism with sacrificial solutions to trolley dilemmas in current moral psychology—may do little for, and even get in the way of, promoting greater moral impartiality. Singer’s session on effective altruism at Victoria University drew those who were excited by the idea of impartial beneficence—but also a group of outraged protestors repelled by instrumental harm. To the extent that the positive aim of utilitarianism has greater moral priority, utilitarians would be advised to downplay the negative component of their doctrine and may even find a surprisingly pliant audience in the religious population.

But although such a strategy may be a more effective way of promoting aspects of utilitarian thinking, the apparent psychological disconnect between the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ dimensions of utilitarianism—an attitude of impartial concern for the well-being of all individuals, on the one hand, and a ‘cold-hearted,’ unemotional acceptance of instrumental harm on the other—suggests that the prospect of full-blown, unreserved acceptance of utilitarianism by more than a small minority may face formidable psychological obstacles.