Monday, April 09, 2007

I never took the Kobayashi Maru test until now. What do you think of my solution?

It should come to no surprise to anyone that really thinks about it that moral decisions are tied to emotional centers of the brain.


US neuroscientists have demonstrated that moral decisions such as whether you would kill one person in order to save many others are strongly influenced by a part of the brain that involves emotion.

The study is published in the journal Nature.

The research team, comprising scientists from the University of Southern California (USC), Harvard University, Caltech and the University of Iowa, presented 30 men and women with dilemmas where they had to say which decision they would take.

Some of the decisions involved making moral judgements about whether to cause harm or death to one person in order to save others from immediate or future harm or death.

One example of a dilemma was: you know someone who has a deadly disease plans to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let it happen or shoot the person with the disease. Would you pull the trigger?

Most people would say they knew the logical choice is they should sacrifice the one to save the many, but they would not be able to bring themselves to pull the trigger.

The difference, say the researchers, is emotion; not emotions in general, but a particular combination of two emotions. One is a general aversion to the act of harming or killing another person, a sort of social compassion, and the other is a more specific compassion, or empathy, for the particular individual concerned.

Conservatives, on the other hand, might find this study counter-intuitive. Generally they consider themselves less plagued by an emotional view of the world than their leftist brethren as well as morally superior. The findings of this study run directly opposite to that worldview.

It brings to mind a number of conversations I've had over the years with my more conservative friends around religion and morality. They seem to have a hard time separating moral choices from religious beliefs. They are incapable of comprehending that correct moral choices can be made in the absence of a belief in a higher power of some kind and a moral value system built on religious foundations. As someone with no personal religious beliefs per se the idea that the only thing keeping me from robbing a bank or going crazy and shooting up the city is a belief in God incomprehensible.

There are a whole lot of things that would keep us from going on a murderous rampage among which are what I consider a societal moral structure that transcends religion. Our duty and belonging to the society we live in, our respect for the government and laws are just a couple parts of that moral structure. Most importantly - we don't harm our fellow citizens because we would just feel bad. Call in "conscience" or "empathy" or whatever but the bottom line is that there's something hard-wired into us as a species that normally prevents us from harming others.

Of course one of the downsides to the higher faculties we possess as a species is that conscience can be reasoned away and overcome. The professional military is very good at this. Citizens get that same opportunity when they serve on the jury of capital cases or vote. Usually we tell ourselves these decisions are for the higher good and they're not really decisions at all but necessary moral capitulations to the circumstances.

Then there are those which don't need to wrestle with these moral decisions. They're the ones that find these decisions simple, that have no problem making life or death decisions about others without giving it all that much thought. Ironically they usually consider themselves morally superior to others when in reality, as this study suggests, they're actually morally deficient when it comes to making choices of what's right and wrong.

5 comments:

Swinebread said...

One of the contributing factors for PTSD… in combat vets.

ladybug said...

Nail, meet head.

Here's the web address of an interesting article about narcissistic/psychopathic bosses;
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html
Interestingly enough these folks tend to share many traits w/corporate CEO's.

I'm sure anyone who's worked in an office environment has run into one or two of these individuals at one time or another. They're poison to an organization and everyone around them.

What's sad is the "administration" never seems to be able to fire these guys/gals either. Everybody else just leaves instead.

On another note, it seems that inflexible religious folks can't operate w/out an EXTERNAL control (i.e. God, their church, pastor/priest). I believe underlying this notion is the fear that w/out this control, society will fall apart (examples, The Roman Empire, the Gay Agenda, Abortion, etc.). There's the "straight and narrow" way, or anarchy & chaos , in their minds.

For the rest of us, that seems superficial. Our moral compass is carefully thought out, subject to revision upon new information, circumstances and situation. That doesn't mean "everything is relative" as the uber-rightwingers would have you believe, it means we think about every choice, or judgement and proceed accordingly.

We don't need or want a spoon-fed, pre-digested rulebook to think for us. We grew up, and we're not scared to face the ugliness of the world on our own two feet.

Dean Wormer said...

Swinebread-

Thanks for bringing up that angle. PTSD makes it appear that morality can never be fully beaten out of most individuals but the morality has to be there to begin with. Sherman's full "war is hell" quote is appropriate.

I'm sure that there are people who go off to war and do terrible things and don't lose a lick of sleep over it once the war is over. I'm also just as sure that those people might be sociopaths.

Dean Wormer said...

LB-

That article is great and plays to something that I've long believed- that corporations are amoral in nature. I chose that word carefully. Socialists might say that corporations are immoral. Libertarians and Randists would probably say the opposite. I think corporations actually exist in a kind of moral vacuum and that by charter their purpose is simply to make money.

Personally I don't have a problem with this but I do think that everybody has to recognize this and realize that the only check on these amoral organizations is a strong government. The government is the only large body with the power to limit companies from running roughshod over society and their own employees and the charter to do so.

That's one of the reasons I have such a problem with idea of transferring the lessons of business to government or trying to run the government like a business or hiring a (failed) CEO to head the government.

On another note, it seems that inflexible religious folks can't operate w/out an EXTERNAL control (i.e. God, their church, pastor/priest). I believe underlying this notion is the fear that w/out this control, society will fall apart (examples, The Roman Empire, the Gay Agenda, Abortion, etc.). There's the "straight and narrow" way, or anarchy & chaos , in their minds.

It is a strange concept which is at it's heart so completely pessimistic about the human condition sans religious influences. It also absolutely ignores the negative influences of religion through-out history (war.)

We don't need or want a spoon-fed, pre-digested rulebook to think for us. We grew up, and we're not scared to face the ugliness of the world on our own two feet.

Agree 100%. If you don't face the ugliness then how will know how to confront it but more importantly - how can you see the beauty?

Overdroid said...

Freedom from or freedom to.