ABSTRACT

In multiple sclerosis, conflicting results have been reported between social impairment and relatively preserved moral judgments, mainly tested with moral dilemmas. Some results even yet suggest signs of “ultra-morality” in these patients. The objective of the present study was to test this hypothesis with the moral/conventional distinction task, investigating the knowledge of social norms and the judgment of moral versus conventional transgressions. In the first condition, the permissibility of social situations was estimated. If the participant judged the situation as wrong, he had to estimate the seriousness of the transgression, to give verbal justifications and to re-estimate the permissibility when the law authorizes the act (generalization condition) and when a social authority recommends the act (dependency condition). Forty-six multiple sclerosis patients matched to healthy controls completed this task. Contrary to our hypotheses, patients showed less permissibility for moral transgressions or a higher seriousness but, unexpectedly, for conventional transgressions. Most importantly, abnormal justifications were observed (strictly moral arguments for conventional transgressions and vice versa). This suggests a lack of distinction between conventional and moral judgment in multiple sclerosis. This confusion may explain the “ultra-morality” sometimes reported, if patients base their judgment mainly on social knowledge and not on emotional processing.

摘要

在多发性硬化症中，社会障碍和相对保留的道德判断之间存在相互矛盾的结果，主要是用道德困境进行测试。一些结果甚至表明这些患者存在“超道德”的迹象。本研究的目的是通过道德/传统区分任务来检验这一假设，调查社会规范的知识以及对道德与传统违法行为的判断。在第一个条件下，估计了社会情况的允许性。如果参与者判断情况是错误的，他必须估计违法行为的严重性，给出口头上的理由，并重新估计法律授权行为（概括条件）和社会权威推荐行为（依赖）时的允许性。健康）状况）。与健康对照相匹配的 46 名多发性硬化症患者完成了这项任务。与我们的假设相反，患者表现出较少的道德违规或更高的严重性，但出乎意料的是，对于传统的违规行为。最重要的是，观察到了异常的理由（对传统违规行为的严格道德论证，反之亦然）。这表明多发性硬化症的传统判断和道德判断之间缺乏区别。如果患者的判断主要基于社会知识而不是情绪处理，这种混淆可能解释了有时报道的“超道德”。对于常规的违规行为。最重要的是，观察到了异常的理由（对传统违规行为的严格道德论证，反之亦然）。这表明多发性硬化症的传统判断和道德判断之间缺乏区别。如果患者的判断主要基于社会知识而不是情绪处理，这种混淆可能解释了有时报道的“超道德”。对于常规的违规行为。最重要的是，观察到了异常的理由（对传统违规行为的严格道德论证，反之亦然）。这表明多发性硬化症的传统判断和道德判断之间缺乏区别。如果患者的判断主要基于社会知识而不是情绪处理，这种混淆可能解释了有时报道的“超道德”。