>The researchers wasn't asking "how good of a parent do you think they are"

They may not have asked that question, but that seems to be the question people were answering. Isn't it somewhat obvious that we almost never answer the literal question?

If I consider the situation where the parent left their 2 year old alone to go meet a lover vs going to work to put food on the table, I'll judge the former situation more harshly. To explain myself, I'd say both situations put the child at the same risk, but the first situation is not a responsible reason to assume that risk.

In short, when you present these scenarios, you're not asking me, "mathematically, which situation is more dangerous for the child?". You're implicitly asking me, "is this parent making a responsible decision?".

The same result was observed (or even strengthened) even when morality and risk were separated in the questionnaire.

Of course the risk of a habit of flippantly walking across minefields is significantly more than the willingness to do it to save a life.

It seems likely to me that the respondents deviated from the question strictly asked using at least in part that reasoning.

So you think a child being left alone in the home of a drug-addicted negligent parent will have the equivalent risk of a child of an otherwise caring parent who accidentally left them at home alone?

I'm not saying the reason itself changes the risk. I'm saying the reason gives me insight into the kind of parent a person is and the likelihood of their being higher risks in the child's environment. Or to use your analogy, there's probably a lot more 'land-mines' in the house of a parent who leaves to play pokemon than in the house of a parent who left their child alone due to an accident or unforeseen circumstances.

If you can't see that than you are blinded by your own sense of rationality.

I think you may have misunderstood the parent; the argument is that an unattended child in the home of a drug-addicted negligent parent is at the SAME level of risk whether that parent left them alone to purchase drugs, or whether they went to work, but that observers don't rate the two situations as comparable.

Well that sounds completely unreasonable to me.

Isn't it more likely that the drug-addicted parents are more likely to leave drug related paraphernalia around. I'm talking about mostly-empty baggies of cocaine, methamphetamine, weed, whatever. Needles, bongs, half empty bottles of booze.

Isn't the drug-addicted parent more likely to not be aware or not care or not notice all sorts of other safety related issues.

Probably the working-parent shouldn't leave a child under a certain age unattended. But it seems perfectly reasonable that people should judge the drug-addict house as more dangerous.

I don't claim to have full knowledge of every situation, but as someone who spent the better part of a decade injecting meth on a very regular basis I feel my opinion ought to carry some authority.

They're the same parent. The drug-addict parent is the working-parent is the drug-addict parent. The drug-addict house is the working-parent house is the drug-addict house.

Do you still feel the child is in more danger if left unattended by the drug-addict parent leaving to buy drugs versus the working parent leaving to work? How about the drug-addict parent leaving to work versus the working parent leaving to buy drugs?

But from what I understand the basis of the research is that it's wrong for us to use morals when judging perceived risk to a child. They base this on the fact that there's x% chance that a certain risk will happen to any child.

But that statistic is based on general population. My contention is that our moral judgement can be used to heighten perceived risk to a child, even though it might blow it well out of proportion. So just because the average child is at a perceived risk of being injured at x% when left alone, I don't think it's wrong to say a child of parent I judge to be amoral or willfully negligent is most likely at an increased risk of being injured.

In my experience that isn't always the case.

For those circumstances where that is the case then ok.

Your experience doesn't matter here, because we're really talking about a physics problem. There is no known physical process by which parent's intent for leaving the child at home could alter the risk profile of that action.

Now that the people really answered a different question that they were actually asked is another thing. Not uncommon with humans in psychological studies.

Yes, but the parent's intent is indicative of their general lifestyle and choices. The point I'm trying to make is that our moral judgements of that intent, while likely being well overinflated, does give us reason to believe that that person's child is at a higher risk when left alone in the environment the parents have given them as compared to the general statistic of perceived risk given to the average child.

Even drug addicts leave the house to go to work. What makes the house safe for a child when that happens?

It isn't. I'm saying under all circumstances the house is less safe for the child based on my assessment of the parents actions. If you were to ask me to rate the risk to a child in their house given only the information that the parent left them to go to work then I wouldn't know they are a drug addict. But if you say one child is left home alone mistakenly by a caring parent versus a parent that intentionally left them home alone to play pokemon go, then I'm going to assume the willfully negligent parents are leaving their kid in a house that is likely less safe.

This research is saying we shouldn't change our assessment of the risks to a child in a situation based on our moral assessment of their parents. I'm saying the fact that the parents are drug addicts or willfully negligent is likely indicative that the child IS at higher risk that the statistical average.

Not sure how I can make this any clearer in any of my responses.