The Role of Moral Principles in Resolving Intergenerational Conflicts of Interest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increase of human power, intergenerational conflicts of interest have emerged as new problems, particularly in terms of environmental and financial sustainability. This study examined the role of moral principles in inducing people to act, taking into account the interests of future generations. A survey was conducted among a representative sample of Japanese citizens to investigate the function of eight moral principles in resolving conflicts in terms of participants’ assessment of the appropriateness of the principles and their willingness to follow them. With respect to the absolute level of the function of moral principles, the results offer some, albeit cautious, promise of a strategy to resolve conflicts through moral principles. Overall, participants responded positively to these principles. Furthermore, the survey revealed that older and more educated individuals responded better. Given their leading roles in society, this finding supports the use of the principles. However, it also suggests that reaching out to those who did not respond to the strategy is challenging. The study revealed that a non-negligible proportion of respondents had only weak responses to any of the principles and that they either needed to be exposed to different principles or provided with different resources to develop sensitivity to moral ideas. The survey also revealed the relative order of principles. Egalitarianism and utilitarianism scored lower, but some principles, including Mill’s harm principle and Scheffler’s argument that the survival of humanity and the world itself has value, scored higher.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".