I think part of this is because few people tend to think of morality as a question. They know what's right and presume everyone else either agrees or is insane in some way. This makes it difficult to frame a morality decision as an actual choice; it becomes coercive instead.
I wonder what would happen if you surveyed game designers and offered them some trolley problem [1] variant and said, "Write up an explanation for which decision you choose." How many would discuss the pros and cons of both decisions? How many of them would look for a third option? How many of them would even be able to explain their decision? How many of them would be able to make a decision?
But the nuance and detail in their response, to me, would be the real indicator. If someone can dive deeply into the question, I think they'd be able to offer real moral choices in other situations, too.
I wonder what would happen if you surveyed game designers and offered them some trolley problem [1] variant and said, "Write up an explanation for which decision you choose." How many would discuss the pros and cons of both decisions? How many of them would look for a third option? How many of them would even be able to explain their decision? How many of them would be able to make a decision?
But the nuance and detail in their response, to me, would be the real indicator. If someone can dive deeply into the question, I think they'd be able to offer real moral choices in other situations, too.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem