Question

according to roedder and kelly, which of the following must be the case for one to be free from blame for acting in a manner that might disadvantage others: their actions are: group of answer choices inconsistent with professed beliefs non-conscious automatic uncontrollable implicit

Answer 1

Roedder and Kelly's research on moral self-licensing suggests that people may engage in actions that could disadvantage others without feeling personally responsible for any negative outcomes. They propose that people may use various cognitive mechanisms to justify their behavior and protect their self-image. In particular, they found that people may give themselves a moral license to act in a biased or prejudiced way if they feel that they have already demonstrated their moral integrity or fairness in some other way.

According to Roedder and Kelly, one way to be free from blame for acting in a manner that might disadvantage others is for the individual's actions to be inconsistent with their professed beliefs. This means that if someone behaves in a way that contradicts their stated moral values, they may feel that they have already done enough to prove their fairness or non-prejudice in other contexts.

Another factor that can contribute to moral self-licensing is if the person's actions are non-conscious, automatic, uncontrollable, or implicit. For example, if someone's biased behavior is driven by unconscious or automatic processes, they may feel less responsible for the outcome and less likely to be blamed for any negative consequences.

Overall, Roedder and Kelly's research suggests that people can use various cognitive strategies to justify their actions and protect their self-image, even if these actions may disadvantage others. This can have important implications for understanding and addressing biases and prejudices in various contexts.

Answer 2

According to Roedder and Kelly, one must be free from blame for acting in a manner that might disadvantage others if their actions are uncontrollable.

This is because if a person's actions are uncontrollable, then they cannot be held responsible for their actions. For example, if a person is acting under the influence of a mental illness or a physical disability, then they cannot be held responsible for their actions.

Roedder and Kelly argue that blameworthiness is a function of both control and awareness. In other words, a person can only be held responsible for their actions if they are both aware of what they are doing and have the ability to control their actions. If either of these conditions is not met, then the person cannot be held responsible for their actions.

This view is controversial, as some people believe that people should always be held responsible for their actions, regardless of whether or not they are controllable. However, Roedder and Kelly's view is consistent with the common-sense view that people should not be held responsible for their actions if they are not in control of them.

Step-by-step explanation: