Note to users. If you're seeing this message, it means that your browser cannot find this page's style/presentation instructions -- or possibly that you are using a browser that does not support current Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing, and what you can do to make your experience of our site the best it can be.
Scarab Genomics

Site Tools

  • AAAS
  • Subscribe
  • Feedback

Site Search

Search Advanced

Published Online May 8, 2008
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1153651

Reports

Submitted on December 3, 2007
Accepted on April 21, 2008

The Right and the Good: Distributive Justice and Neural Encoding of Equity and Efficiency

Ming Hsu 1{dagger}, Cédric Anen 2{dagger}, Steven R. Quartz 2*

1 Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, and Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
2 Social Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Division of Humanities and Social Sciences 228-77, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Steven R. Quartz , E-mail: steve{at}hss.caltech.edu

{dagger}These authors contributed equally to this work.

Distributive justice concerns how individuals and societies distribute benefits and burdens in a just or moral manner. Combining distribution choices with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we investigate the central problem of distributive justice: the tradeoff between equity and efficiency. We find that the putamen responds to efficiency, whereas the insula encodes inequity, and the caudate/septal subgenual region encodes a unified measure of efficiency and inequity (utility). Strikingly, individual differences in inequity aversion correlate with activity in inequity and utility regions. Against utilitarianism, our results support the deontological intuition that a sense of fairness is fundamental to distributive justice, but, as suggested by moral sentimentalists, is rooted in emotional processing. More generally, emotional responses related to norm violations may underlie individual differences in equity considerations and adherence to ethical rules.





ADVERTISEMENT
Click Me!

ADVERTISEMENT
Click Me!

To Advertise     Find Products


Science. ISSN 0036-8075 (print), 1095-9203 (online)