Kant Hardened Villain - Order

Kant claims that even a hardened villain (someone of bad moral character) could do a morally good action because it is the right thing to do (from and for the sake of duty). We aim to see if people agree with this thought. Does the bad character of the actor "taint" the moral goodness of a morally good action? Or is there an incandescent core proper to morally good action (perhaps requiring that the agent be intrinsically motivated to do that action) that remains untouched by an agent's sordid past? In previous research we found that despite being told a person had bad moral character, information that the target did one good action (helped a lost child, gave money to someone begging) dramatically boosted moral ratings of that person. This was true even when no motivation for the target's action was specified, suggesting people extend the moral benefit of the doubt (assume the target is intrinsically motivated) even to persons stipulated to have bad character. This study aims to further clarify these results. First, we switch the order of the information presented. Participants will first read about the good action, rate that action and that person, and only then be told that the target had bad or average character. This will better indicate how much the "boost" to moral evaluation of the target represents an order effect. Second, half of the participants will be introduced to Kant's idea about the accessibility of morally good action for all rational adults. We are interested to see how much this changes ratings of the action and the agent. Central Research Questions: 1a. Does the bad moral character of the agent impugn the moral goodness of their morally good actions? 1b. Does the addition of character information change the evaluation of the action and person, or only the person? 2. How does the difference between the first and second ratings of the person and action compare to the difference between the first and second ratings of the person and action when the order of information (what you have when rating: character information vs. action information) is switched? 3. Does the introduction of the Kantian idea of the accessibility of morally good action for all people change how people evaluate the person (the first measure of action and person)?