How Does Type of Moral Responsibility Affect the Extent of the Moral Circle? The Influence of Relational Models

Abstract

The “moral circle” defines entities toward which a person feels moral responsibility. Relational Models Theory (RMT) proposes four basic relational models (communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing), each with distinct moral motivations. This study applies RMT to define different types of moral responsibility: caring, guiding, obeying/deferring, ensuring equality, or equity. We proposed that the type of moral responsibility may alter a judge’s rating of degree of responsibility, affecting the entity’s placement within the moral circle. Linear mixed model analyses of responsibility ratings toward various human and other targets across six closeness levels confirmed that relational models significantly affected felt responsibility ratings. Specifically, asking about Equality Matching responsibility (assuring equal rights and treatment) led to higher moral responsibility ratings than other definitions (Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Market Pricing), even for negatively judged targets like rapists. The two cultures tested (US and Türkiye) differed in average responsibility ratings for various targets, but culture did not interact with Relational Models. Differences in moral inclusiveness are interpreted through relational model characteristics, such as boundedness and rule orientation. In addition to individual, situational, cultural differences, relational models between judge and target also affect extent of the moral circle.