We hypothesized that because Covid-19 (C19) remains an urgent and visible threat, efforts to combat its negative health consequences have become moralized. This moralization of health-based efforts may generate asymmetries in judgement, whereby harmful by-products of those efforts (i.e., instrumental harm) are perceived as more acceptable than harm resulting from non-C19 efforts, such as prioritizing the economy or non-C19 issues. We tested our predictions in two experimental studies. In Study 1, American participants evaluated the same costs (public shaming, deaths and illnesses, and police abuse of power) as more acceptable when they resulted from efforts to minimize C19's health impacts, than when they resulted from non-health C19 efforts (e.g., prioritizing economic costs) or efforts unrelated to C19 (e.g., reducing traffic deaths). In Study 2, New Zealand participants less favorably evaluated the quality of a research proposal empirically questioning continuing a C19 elimination strategy in NZ than one questioning abandoning an elimination strategy, although both proposals contained the same amount of methodology information. This finding suggests questioning elimination approaches is morally condemned, a similar response to that found when sacred values are questioned. In both studies, condition effects were mediated by lowered moral outrage in response to costs resulting from pursuing health-minded C19 efforts. Follow-up analyses revealed that both heightened personal concern over contracting C19 and liberal ideology were associated with greater asymmetries in human cost evaluation. Altogether, results suggest reducing or eliminating C19 have become moralized, generating asymmetries in evaluations of human suffering.

我们假设，由于 Covid-19 (C19) 仍然是一种紧迫而明显的威胁，因此对抗其负面健康后果的努力已变得道德化。这种对基于健康的努力的道德化可能会产生判断上的不对称，即这些努力的有害副产品（即工具性伤害）被认为比非 C19 努力（例如优先考虑经济或非 C19）造成的伤害更容易被接受。问题。我们在两项实验研究中测试了我们的预测。在研究 1 中，美国参与者评估了相同的成本（公众羞辱、死亡和疾病以及警察滥用权力），当这些成本是由尽量减少 C19 健康影响的努力产生时，比由非健康 C19 努力产生的成本（例如， ，优先考虑经济成本）或与 C19 无关的努力（例如，减少交通死亡）。在研究 2 中，新西兰参与者对一项研究提案的质量评价不如质疑放弃消除策略的研究提案质量，尽管这两项提案包含相同数量的方法信息。这一发现表明质疑消除方法在道德上受到谴责，这与神圣价值观受到质疑时的反应类似。在这两项研究中，健康状况的影响是通过降低道德愤怒来调节的，以应对追求健康的 C19 努力所产生的成本。后续分析显示，个人对 C19 合同和自由主义意识形态的担忧加剧与人力成本评估的更大不对称性有关。总而言之，结果表明减少或消除 C19 已经变得道德化，导致对人类苦难的评估不对称。