Sacred values are processed as unconditional rules, not cost-benefit calculations.

Evidence

But if risk of death is very high and the material prospects for victory low, or if odds for success are too difficult to calculate, then gain could not reasonably outweigh loss. Indeed, cross-cultural studies show that prospects of crippling economic burdens and many deaths do not necessarily sway people from their positions on whether going to war, or opting for revolution or resistance, is the right or wrong choice (Ginges & Atran 2011). Because of outsize commitment, revolutionary underdogs often prevail against far more powerful foes (Arreguín-Toft 2001). For example, regardless of the practical reasoning of terror-sponsoring organizations, suicide bombers appear to act as devoted actors, willing to make extreme sacrifices that use a logic of appropriateness rather than a cost–benefit calculus (Atran 2010). The results of brainimaging studies suggest that people tend to neurally process sacred values as rules to be implemented regardless of consequences, rather than through utilitarian calculation (Berns et al. 2012). — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 270

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: This directly extends the ‘On Sacrifice’ article — devotion-driven sacrifice operating outside cost-benefit logic is the same mechanism behind ritual human sacrifice as stabilizing commitment.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s framing of Father Rodrigues in Silence acting under an omniscient observer — sacred-value commitment defies the rational calculus the Japanese authorities assume. — connects to: Sacred values bind group identity and give groups advantage through non-rational commitment. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 264; People weigh sacred duty over family via moral perception, not cost-benefit calculation. — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor: Unconditional…, 45

Related

• Sacred values resist cost-benefit correction unlike ordinary preferences (similarity 0.86)
• Sacred-values-driven violence is insensitive to cost-benefit scope. (similarity 0.84)
• Sacred values engage deontic rule processing, not utilitarian cost-benefit calculation (similarity 0.83)
• People weigh sacred duty over family via moral perception, not cost-benefit calculation. (similarity 0.83)
• Sacred-value commitment produces costly sacrifice that lets weak groups beat stronger foes. (similarity 0.83)
• Defending sacred values defies material cost-benefit prediction across decision contexts. (similarity 0.82)
• Moral commitment to sacred values leverages movements lacking material means against stronger opposition. (similarity 0.82)
• Sacred values resist material trade-offs and respond to symbolic meaning (similarity 0.81)
• Sacred values bind group identity and give groups advantage through non-rational commitment. (similarity 0.81)
• Sacred values resist trade-offs and override rational self-interest in decision making. (similarity 0.81)
• Sacred values resist material incentives and are best countered only by rival sacred values. (similarity 0.81)
• Sacred values and identity fusion interact to drive sacrificial self-interest. (similarity 0.79)
• Sacred values resist tradeoffs because communities set them apart as nonfungible moral imperatives. (similarity 0.79)
• Sacred values can form quickly through ritual and perceived group threat. (similarity 0.79)
• Reducing sacred values to material ones worsens conflict (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Sacred values bind group identity and give groups advantage through non-rational commitment. #corroborates (0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 264