This article reframes moral dilemmas as decisions about strategy under limits. It draws on resource-rational models and the bias–variance trade-off to predict when simple heuristics outperform more complex reasoning. That approach connects cognitive science and ethics by asking which thinking styles are adaptively sensible given real-world costs of attention, memory, and information gathering.
Understanding moral choice in this way matters for designing fairer institutions, clearer public messaging, and tools that support better decisions for diverse people. The piece raises practical questions about when to teach deliberative skills, when to scaffold choices, and how to spot situations where intuition leads us astray. Follow the link to explore how these ideas map onto everyday dilemmas and what that means for human potential and inclusive decision-making.
Real-world moral decisions are constrained by limited information and bounded cognitive resources, necessitating heuristic strategies. We argue that choices in moral dilemmas should be analysed in terms of decision strategies rather than ethical theories and show how resource rationality and the bias–variance trade-off explain when people rely on particular strategies.
