A thought about the psychology of moral reasoning.

There is a simple story that is used by psychologists to study moral reasoning:

Two women go on a tour of a chemical factory. During a break, one of them - Ann - says to the other that she is going to get a cup of coffee to carry with her. The other - Betty - asks the first to also get her a cup with sugar but no cream.

• Version 1: Ann fills the cup and sees a bottle next to the coffee machine marked "poison" full of white powder. She adds some to the coffee in Betty's cup. Betty drinks the coffee, the white powder turns out to be sugar, and Betty is fine.
• Version 2: Ann fills the cup and sees a bottle next to the coffee machine marked "sugar" full of white powder. She adds some to the coffee in Betty's cup. Betty drinks the coffee, the white powder turns out to be poison, and Betty dies.

Most people when asked, find Ann is morally at fault in version 1 but not in version 2.

In Version 1, I believe that Ann would not be charged with a crime. No damage to Betty, no crime. On the other hand, in Version 2 there would be a crime, but presumably Ann would not be charged. Rather, the person who filled a jar marked "sugar" with poison and put it next to a coffee machine would presumably be guilty of homicidal negligence.

I suggest that you not participate in lab experiments of psychologists, or if you insist on doing so, you not limit yourself to the way that they frame problems for your analysis. Think for yourself.