Deconstructing the moral circle: Obligations as the driver of moral expansion.

Who do we believe deserves rights, and when do we feel personally obligated to protect them? Expanding the moral circle has been seen as a hallmark of moral progress, yet existing research has rarely examined how different kinds of moral judgements, recognizing rights versus endorsing obligations, shape this process. The present research disentangles these judgements across human and non-human entities to better understand how they predict prosocial decision-making. Across three studies (N = 1256), we consistently found that people were more willing to grant moral rights than to endorse moral obligations, particularly for human targets. Yet only obligations emerged as a reliable predictor of prosocial intentions across both high- and low-cost behaviours. Study 3 extended these findings by distinguishing between positive and negative forms of moral judgement, showing that while negative rights and obligations were attributed more broadly, positive obligations most strongly motivated helping, especially towards non-human entities. Together, these findings demonstrate that rights may expand the moral circle symbolically, but obligations, particularly positive obligations, supply the motivational force that is most closely tied to prosociality. This distinction offers new theoretical insight into moral cognition and highlights practical avenues for fostering prosocial engagement in a time of expanding but often inconsistent moral concern.