One dilemma faced by policy makers is the choice between banning a harmful behavior and allowing the behavior to continue but with mitigated harm. This latter approach––a harm reduction strategy––is often efficacious, yet policies of this sort can be unpopular if people morally oppose the target behavior (MacCoun, 2013). This raises interesting questions for understanding how judgments of harmfulness relate to moral opposition. In four studies (N = 1090), including one U.S. representative sample, we found that increased moral opposition to risky sex, gun ownership, cigarette smoking (Studies 1–3), and unemployment (Study 4), was associated with less support for pre-exposure prophylaxis, gun safety training, e-cigarette use, and federal support respectively. However, there was variation across the issues across time, including when news broke of “vaping sickness” in 2019. Interestingly, judgments of harmfulness of both gun ownership and risky sexual behavior, though correlated with moral opposition, positively predict policy support, suggesting that it is possible to judge a behavior as harmful but otherwise acceptable, and in that case harm-reduction policy is also acceptable. Together, these results highlight the multi-faceted nature of moral opposition and its implications for real-world policy.

政策制定者面临的一个困境是在禁止有害行为和允许行为继续但损害减轻之间做出选择。后一种方法——一种减少伤害的策略——通常是有效的，但如果人们在道德上反对目标行为，这种政策可能会不受欢迎（MacCoun，2013 年）。这为理解有害性判断与道德对立之间的关系提出了有趣的问题。在四项研究中（N = 1090），包括一个美国代表性样本，我们发现对危险性行为、枪支所有权、吸烟（研究 1-3）和失业（研究 4）的道德反对增加与对暴露前预防的支持减少有关，枪支安全培训、电子烟使用和联邦支持。然而，随着时间的推移，这些问题存在差异，包括 2019 年“吸电子烟病”的消息何时爆发。有趣的是，对枪支所有权和危险性行为的危害性的判断虽然与道德反对相关，但积极预测了政策支持，这表明可以将一种行为判断为有害但在其他方面可以接受，在这种情况下，减少伤害的政策也是可以接受的。一起，