Moral anger tracks the offender’s intentions, not just the harm done

Evidence

For moral violations involving the infringement of other persons’ rights (e.g., a person stealing a purse from a blind person or a drunk man beating his wife), anger was the most associated emotion. In line with these results, studies with economic games reveal anger and irritation to be the most reported emotions when a cooperation norm is broken (Reuben & van Winden 2008). … This hypothesis also leads to precise predictions: If anger is really about motivating us to restore fairness, then anger should be more concerned with the consequences of an action (i.e., whether someone’s rights were infringed), than about the mental states of the agent (i.e., whether he wronged his victim accidentally or on purpose). But, once again, this prediction is at odds with empirical results. First, punishment does not vary uniquely according to the consequences of one’s action and the magnitude of the wrong: though it is sensitive to consequences, it is also sensible to the agent’s intentions (Cushman 2008; Cushman et al. 2009; Falk et al. 2003). This is consistent with most legal systems, in which punishment varies not only according to the actus reus (what the agent did), but also according to the mens rea (what the agent’s intentions were). If punishment is driven by anger-related emotion, then it is plausible that anger is sensible not only to consequences, but also to the agent’s intention. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 353

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reading purpose’s Big God moral psychology framework — anger as moral enforcement emotion fits Norenzayan’s costly signaling of moral credentials, and the actus reus / mens rea distinction parallels how Fumi-e trampling (public act) fails to reveal inner faith (intention). — connects to: Mutualistic anthropology explains moral anger as an evolved fairness-restoring mechanism — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 354

Related

• Mutualistic anthropology explains moral anger as an evolved fairness-restoring mechanism (similarity 0.86)
• Anger at being cheated was necessary for fairness to become intrinsically valued (similarity 0.82)
• Moral emotions are dominated by punitive anger, not avoidance (similarity 0.81)
• Anger deters aggression and seeks bargaining power rather than fairness. (similarity 0.80)
• Fairness regulates rather than generates the moralized expression of evolved dispositions (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Mutualistic anthropology explains moral anger as an evolved fairness-restoring mechanism #expands (0.90) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 354