DAMAGE to an area of the brain behind the forehead, centimetres behind the eyes, transforms the way people make moral judgements in life-or-death situations, scientists are reporting.Asked to resolve hypothetical dilemmas ? such as tossing a person from a bridge into the path of a runaway train carriage to save five others ? people with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex tended to sacrifice one life to save many, according to a study published by the journal Nature.People with intact brains were far less likely to kill or harm someone when confronted with the same scenarios.The study suggests that an aversion to hurting others is hard-wired into the brain.”Part of our moral behaviour is grounded ? in a specific part of our brains,” said Antonio Damasio, one of the study’s lead authors and director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at the University of Southern California.The findings could not be used to predict behaviour, Dr Damasio said, because the scenarios presented in the study were unrealistic. More research was needed to determine if people with and without brain damage would react differently when faced with real-world moral dilemmas, he said.A finding linking a specific type of brain damage to day-to-day moral behaviour could have legal implications in criminal cases. Researchers said the study was only meant to explore the psychological underpinnings of moral actions, not to characterise decisions as right or wrong.
Now this is just the kind of gobbledigook some people will use to justify… what? That scientific study of the brain can discover the source of our humanity, our character, our conscience, our morals?
In a word – Ridiculous.
Tim,
I think it’s probably wise to view news reports like this with a healthy dose of skepticism, but I’m unclear as to whether you object to this post because you feel like people might read too much into it (“Aha! We’ve found the part of the brain where our morals come from!), or because you feel like science in general or neurology in particular cannot have anything to say about moral behavior.
I agree with you that this study indeed probably says very little (if anything) about where our morals really come from, but I do think that morality can be a valid subject of scientific inquiry. I have no idea how much science will actually be able to explain, but I think it’s worth it to ask the questions, and it’s not obvious to me that science can’t have anything to say about it.
Tim:
That’s the only place all of those characteristics come from.
Sorry to burst your romantic bubble.
KA:
What about the general “memosphere” (meme-pool?).
Memes (like religion and morality) of course require brains to propogate, but they don’t originate in brains. Their evolution depends on their transmission between brains, so to say the brain is the only place that morality etc., can come from isn’t quite correct. At least some part, maybe even most, comes from the vast web of communication in human society, which is distinctly different.
Apple:
They gotta start somewhere, don’t they?
So it takes two brains. To-may-toe, to-mah-toe.
It still begins in 1 (or more) human brain(s).
Next time I’ll qualify it w/a ‘collective’ clause.
Just the kind of terrible response I’d expect from Tim. Not only have distinct behavioral changes happened in people who have suffered strokes, but infection with a common uncurable virus has been proven to change personality.
Check out Toxoplasma gondii. Carl Zimmer has wrote a ton about it, it infects 30-40% of the human population, it’s incurable, it lives in the brain, and causes people (and all other animals) to be more socially aggressive & less risk averse.
Why does it bother the religious that consciousness & personality is material?
because that suggests that conciousness and personality are mutable and temporal.
Tim:
I think science is on the threshold of answering a lot of questions about why we feel certain ways about certain things, as well as the physical side of the actual feelings (ie, the mechanisms by which we feel things)
as usual, it will seem too pedestrian for most people, and a few will recognise some beauty in the simplicity of the theory and the complexity of the mechanism…
A guy I work with is a currently non-practicing Pentecostal Holiness but still a true believer. He claims to have witnessed demon possesion. What he has actually witnessed is mental illness caused by the physical brain either that or some good old holy-roller histrionics. An old lady I knew from church (I’m an apostate christian) was a nice lady but had a kind of serious personality. After a stroke she became an old “character” who would say anything to anybody. And a kindly old Methodist minister became a crotchedy cantankerous old man when he came down with Alzheimers. Some how he lived to be 81. By the way the lady who became an old “character” lived to be 97!
I don’t believe there is an adequate definition of what constitutes moral judgement in a life-or-death situation or in any other kind. Dr. Kevorkian (aka Dr. Death to some) was considered by some other people to be doing a good and necessary service with his assisted suicide. Atheists are considered not moral to some. Who is to say what or who is moral?
People have known for a while that the frontal lobe is used for judgement and decision making. It has been shown that damage to the frontal lobe or people with smaller frontal lobes tend to make poor decisions or judgements. It also affects planning. So this finding really doesn’t come as too much of a surprise, though maybe it can be used in an argument to show that moral judgements don’t come from religion, we’re born with it.
That’s science: 5,766,804,342; religion: 0
homonid:
I think that even if we don’t consider which decision would be ‘better’ on moral grounds, we can still agree that it is a bit of a moral dilemma, and the fact that the way we make our moral decisions can be affected by a bit of brain damage is quite astounding. It suggests that there IS in fact a basis for morals beyond the bible.
I don’t even care which decision is to be deemed more or less ‘moral’. The fact is, it changed with brain damage, not with a re-reading of the new testament or the raping by a clergy member.
(I’m sure that ‘morals’ could change under either of those other circumstances, but it’s interesting to note that it doesn’t necessarily take a religious influence.)
Yes, there is evidence for “morality” being “hardwired” into primates from the beginning:
New York Times, March 20, 2007 –
“Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/20moral.html
Well, my link didn’t work, but you can go to the NY Times archives and look it up by the article title, which is in quotes above. That’ll get you there.
It has been known for some time that risky and criminal behavior are linked to the activity/connections of the prefrontal cortex. See here
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1693445
(Note especially the last sentence of the absract, even if you can’t access the article)
Sorry Timmah, but, as one of my graduate committee members stated, “Behavior is physiology”. There are NUMEROUS examples of injury/disease drastically altering behavior and personality (as anyone with an Alzheimer’s relative can tell you).
One classic case that clued scientists in: Phineas Gage.
This is not particularly surprising. We’ve known for a very long time that human behavior is governed by the brain. There was a famouse case in the 19th Century in which a railroad worker named Phineas Gage survived a crowbar pentrating his brain. He recovered physically, but had lost control of his emotional responses. He would fly into rages or burst into tears at the slightest provocation.
It is also true that the majority of people have an inherent repugnance to killing other people.
That is why soldiers must be put through a course of desensitization and brainwashing called “basic training.”
There are people who can kill without compunction. They are called psychopaths. Their problem likely resides in their brain wiring.
hominid-
me.
The brain is the person. I don’t think the test was very well done. It does show how a change in the brain can cause change in behavior, but this has been known a very long time. Saying those with the damage have “poor morals” because they can make a logic decision correctly instead of letting all die. We should all choose to kill one to save five. Not doing so, would be irresponsible(even if you are the one). It shows that the “normal” brain is hampered by our emotional connection to reality. This is another fact known for a very long time.
The test also only tests those within our modern culture, what would an aborigine see as the correct choice in this situation. Our “morality” is cultural, we are taught it by our society and our parents. We as a culture decide what is ethical. Not god or the supernatural. When we brake laws, we are punished by members of our own society, not god or the supernatural. That should be enough proof for any rational person.
In all cases?
)
What if the one were a child and the five were convicted serial killers?
Or terrorists? (Or republicans?
The brain is the source of decision-making and inhibition. Duh. People like Tim might not like this reality because it threatens their comfortable delusion, but… duh!
I just had a long conversation on the subject of morals. The scenario above where one gets sacrificed to save five is always an immoral act. It matters not if it can be justified by individual survival, or by group-strength survival, or by lesser-of-two-evils logic. This makes the act justifiable, it does not make it moral. How do I know? Because somebody got fucked.
Your introspective world view should probably make you averse to commiting immoral acts, but you probably should not delude yourself into thinking that you are incapable of doing so, and therefore rationalize away the immorality.
No, I would not agree with “murder to save” in all cases. The situation in the test is meant to give you a lose/lose choice. You should feel uncomfortable with both choices. It is hypothetical.
But, firemen and others daily choose to give their lives to save others. The ability to sacrifice yourself for others is a very moral thing. It shows an unconscious identification with the suffering of others. In a just society would not all have this urge to save others? If you change the situation to, “the man you need to kill wants you to kill him, because the ones saved are his wife and children”. In many cases, the victim may very well agree with your decision to sacrifice them. I would not be angry if my death saved five. It would not be my first choice ,though…
karen speculated:
Well, then the five would be xtians.
Friday Pirate, Pixel: Do you believe that animals with more advanced brains function with some sort of variation of moral decision making or that more advanced fauna exhibit behavior aligned more closely with learned coping and survival of the fittest techniques? Lets not forget man is not the only living and breathing creature with an advanced brain. Nor is man the only animal to make choices. Are we suggesting that so-called morals are unique to man? I’m more inclined to see mans decision making processes aligned more closely with perceived survival coping, instincts, and learned behavior. I’m not suggesting our brains are not more advanced or that there isn’t linkage between brain chemistry and behavior. I am however suggesting that before digging too deeply into the human brain that caution is needed unless our aim is to unleash more Dr Frankensteins.
Yawn, this is truely old news. As others before me stated, we’ve known this for some time. I learned about it 10 years ago in graduate school.
Europeans are in big trouble now. That Big Bad Pope has accused them of apostasy.
“In a speech to European bishops on Saturday, Pope Benedict accused the EU of apostasy for refusing to mention Christianity in the Berlin Declaration.
Asking how leaders could hope to get closer to their citizens if they denied such an essential part of European identity, the head of the Roman Catholic Church said: “Does not this unique form of apostasy of itself, even before God, lead it (Europe) to doubt its very identity?”"
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/24/eu.anniversary.reut/index.html
This next one, you could not make up. The Pope chides Europeans for not making enough babies! As if he did his share!
“Europe appears to be losing faith in its own future, Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday, warning against “dangerous individualism” on a continent where many people are having fewer children.
“One must unfortunately note that Europe seems to be going down a road which could lead it to take its leave from history,” the pontiff told bishops in Rome for ceremonies to mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, a major step toward the creation of today’s European Union.
Benedict said he was concerned about Europe’s “demographic profile” _ though he did not describe the trends that have alarmed the continent for decades.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070324/vatican-pope-europe
Hmm, I guess the pope doesn’t realize that overpopulation is bad and that the Spanish Inquisition has been over for some time now.
At what point are we going to finally abandon these stupid antique notions of mind body dualism? Descartes did more damage to science and philosophy than most people are prepared to accept. Is it really surprising that a portion of the brain is linked to moral reasoning? Honestly, thinking otherwise inevitably leads to intractable cartesian theaters in the ‘res cogitans’ or some sort of weird homunculus ad absurdum argument. Is it really that strange that our brain and our mind might be identical? Where else or what else would this mind stuff be?
I find nothing contentious about the notion that altering a part of the brain could effect our judgements about how to act, altruistically or not, in a given demanding scenario. Brains, minds…whats the difference?
But its a dangerous game (and by that I mean a poor set of inferences) to reduce all moral judgements to simple neurons. Clearly there is some complex processing happening in there, but should we really be surprised that altering the architecture of our brains…the center of our entire personality, might led to..personality changes? (See thats a play on words, if brains and minds…therefore personalities are identical, then changing the brain would, by necessity, mean changing the personality).
Think of an extension of the argument. I am absolutely certain there is a part of the brain any mongoloid surgeon could chop out which would subsequently increase the likely hood a person would go around beating people up with uncontrollable rage. (think Phinneaus Gage, or individuals with Cortical Adrenal Hyperplasia, or supermales – extrachromosome variety). We love reducing villaneous behavior to neurological problems or the ever present ‘chemical imbalance’ meme. But when it comes to doing something good for a change, talking about altruism in the same biological language makes everyone so ready to fight it out. Double standard my friend.
And to argue that memes are responsible…hmm, i would wage that memes are merely the currency of our transpersonal neurological interactions. A necessary byproduct of efficient information sharing between to brains. The transmission of info and source of info and raw material for moral judgment is, I suspect, not distinct from any sort of identity theory of the mind. Rather just a necessary component of the fact of mulitple complex organisms doing what they doing, thinking and sharing thoughts.
Antonio Damasio:
“Part of our moral behaviour is grounded ? in a specific part of our brains,”
Also, be careful not to interpret ‘grounded’ as a causal condition. My computer’s video capabilities are, in a sense, grounded in my video card and ram, damaging or removing those will certainly effect how I play crazy video games. Surely they are related. And, technologically speaking, they co-evolved. Now, does the video card cause those video games? No, that would be an instance of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy.
I don’t think Damasio is implying that, but its easy to read that into what he says. Scientists use cautious language. Journalists reporting on the sciences love to wrestle poor inferences from the cautious language of science.
Zac:
Hear, hear! I’ve been saying this for years. The mind & body are interconnected. The Asians knew this for eons: us Westerners are finally figuring it out.
“I’d rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.” – Tom Waits.
KA:
Which Asians might those be?
Apple:
Chinese, probably Japanese. TCM (traditional Chinese medicine), taoists, buddhists, etc. Yogis (no, not the Hanna Barbera creation) – Lao Tzu.
Hate to break it to you, KA, but Aristotle also believed that the mind and body are one. Or rather that “the soul is not separable from the body, and the same holds good of particular parts of the soul.” He also believed that knowledge is not preexisting, but that instead it grows from experiences stored in our memories.
evil:
No, I hate to break it to you, but Aristotle speaks of mind & soul as 2 separate items interacting.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/aristotle.soul.html
“That soul is a harmony in the sense of the mode of composition of the parts of the body is a view easily refutable; for there are many composite parts and those variously compounded; of what bodily part is mind or the sensitive or the appetitive faculty the mode of composition? And what is the mode of composition which constitutes each of them? It is equally absurd to identify the soul with the ratio of the mixture; for the mixture which makes flesh has a different ratio between the elements from that which makes bone. The consequence of this view will therefore be that distributed throughout the whole body there will be many souls, since every one of the bodily parts is a different mixture of the elements, and the ratio of mixture is in each case a harmony, i.e. a soul”
AND:
“The case of mind is different; it seems to be an independent substance implanted within the soul and to be incapable of being destroyed.“
KA,
I admit that I’m not into philosophy, though my psychology text book opens up hailing Aristotle for viewing the mind and body as one. So there’s my source. If it’s wrong, then I don’t know since I really don’t do philosophy.