001 level (see Table 4). In addition, participants completed four further questions about the moral permissibility of causing significant harm in real-life contexts (abortion, experimentation in animals, eating meat, and torture). These were included to investigate whether ‘utilitarian’ judgment in personal dilemmas is associated with greater willingness to endorse harm in real-life contexts, even when an explicit utilitarian rationale for that harm is not provided. These items were not collated into a scale due to low internal reliability (α = .07), and were therefore analyzed separately. Correlational analyses

were conducted to explore the relationship between primary trans-isomer psychopathy, responses to the personal moral dilemmas, and the new measure of characteristic real-world utilitarian judgment (see Table 5), revealing: i. Reduced wrongness ratings of ‘utilitarian’ responses in the moral dilemmas were not significantly correlated with real-world utilitarian beliefs (r = −.03, p = .72). This lack of a relationship held even when controlling for primary psychopathy, yielding

a non-significant partial correlation (r = .02, p = .81). Real-life utilitarian beliefs were associated with increased hypothetical donations (r = .49, p < .001) and thinking that both eating meat (r = .32, p < .001) and torture (r = −.23, p < .005) are more wrong, and that painful animal experimentation is less acceptable (r = .28, p < .005). By contrast, ‘utilitarian’ judgments in the personal dilemmas were associated with finding painful animal experimentation more acceptable (r = .28, p < .001) but abortion GSK1210151A clinical trial more wrong (r = .22, p < .005). In this study, we directly investigated the relationship between ‘utilitarian’ judgment in sacrificial dilemmas and some of the moral judgments most closely associated with a utilitarian outlook when it is applied to the real world. We found no relationship between these two sets of moral judgments: individuals who were more willing to endorse sacrificing one person to save a greater number did not also exhibit more impartial moral views in contexts that involve

impartial altruism and potential self-sacrifice—views that are the very heart of a utilitarian outlook. These results provide yet further support for our hypothesis that willingness to endorse personal harm in hypothetical dilemmas else is not expressive of impartial concern for the greater good. In Study 3 we examined a range of real life moral views that are characteristic of a utilitarian ethical outlook—for example, the view that we should donate significant amounts of our income to charities that save lives. Such moral views, however, depend on (plausible) empirical assumptions that were not always made explicit in Study 3, and that some individuals may not share—i.e., someone may have strong utilitarian leanings yet also believe that aid is a highly ineffective way of helping people in need.