Moral judgment fails without feelings
March 22, 2007
Neuroscientists from Harvard, USC and Caltech trace abnormal moral choices to damaged emotional circuits
Consider the following scenario: someone you know has AIDS and plans to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let it happen or to kill the person.
Do you pull the trigger?
Most people waver or say they could not, even if they agree that in theory they should. But according to a new study in the journal Nature, subjects with damage to a part of the frontal lobe make a less personal calculation.
The logical choice, they say, is to sacrifice one life to save many.
Conducted by researchers at the University of Southern California, Harvard University, Caltech and the University of Iowa, the study shows that emotion plays an important role in scenarios that pose a moral dilemma.
If certain emotions are blocked, we make decisions that - right or wrong - seem unnaturally cold.
The scenarios in the study are extreme, but the core dilemma is not: should one confront a co-worker, challenge a neighbor, or scold a loved one in the interest of the greater good?
A total of 30 subjects of both genders faced a set of scenarios pitting immediate harm to one person against future certain harm to many. Six had damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a small region behind the forehead, while 12 had brain damage elsewhere, and another 12 had no damage.
The subjects with VMPC damage stood out in their stated willingness to harm an individual - a prospect that usually generates strong aversion.
"Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in real life. They lack empathy and compassion," said Ralph Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Caltech.
"In those circumstances most people without this specific brain damage will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that conflict," said co-senior author Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute and holder of the David Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience at USC.
"Our work provides the first causal account of the role of emotions in moral judgments," said co-senior author Marc Hauser, professor of psychology at Harvard and Harvard College Professor.
But, Hauser added, not all moral reasoning depends so strongly on emotion.
"What is absolutely astonishing about our results is how selective the deficit is," he said. "Damage to the frontal lobe leaves intact a suite of moral problem solving abilities, but damages judgments in which an aversive action is put into direct conflict with a strong utilitarian outcome."
It is the feeling of aversion that normally blocks humans from harming each other. Damasio described it as "a combination of rejection of the act, but combined with the social emotion of compassion for that particular person."
"The question is, are the social emotions necessary to make these moral judgments," Adolphs asked.
The study's answer will inform a classic philosophical debate on whether humans make moral judgments based on norms and societal rules, or based on their emotions.
The study holds another implication for philosophy.
By showing that humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, the study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different philosophies for compatibility with human nature.
The Nature study expands on work on emotion and decision-making that Damasio began in the early 1990s and that caught the public eye in his first book, Descartes' Error.
Marc Hauser, whose behavioral work in animals has attempted to identify precursors to moral behavior, then teamed up with Damasio's group to extend those observations.
University of Southern California
Related Moral Judgment Current Events and Moral Judgment News ArticlesBrain scans link concern for justice with reason, not emotion
People who care about justice are swayed more by reason than emotion, according to new brain scan research from the Department of Psychology and Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience.Study: Empathy plays a key role in moral judgments
Is it permissible to harm one to save many? Those who tend to say "yes" when faced with this classic dilemma are likely to be deficient in a specific kind of empathy, according to a report published in the scientific journal PLOS ONE.'Moral realism' may lead to better moral behavior
Getting people to think about morality as a matter of objective facts rather than subjective preferences may lead to improved moral behavior, Boston College researchers report in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows
People are able to detect, within a split second, if a hurtful action they are witnessing is intentional or accidental, new research on the brain at the University of Chicago shows.Beanballs and the psychology of revenge
In a new study, baseball fans exhibit a high moral tolerance for a form of revenge not otherwise practiced in most of contemporary society: avenging a teammate who has been hit by a pitch by aiming a pitch at an opposing batter who was not previously involved.BC, Northwestern Researchers Shed Light On How People Assign Blame to Organizations
Who gets the blame when a member of a group does something wrong-the individual or the group? The answer may depend on how cohesive the group is perceived to be.Are doing harm and allowing harm equivalent?
Individuals and courts deal more harshly with people who actively commit harm than with people who willfully allow the same harm to occur.Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas
A study conducted by Daniel Bartels, Columbia Business School, Marketing, and David Pizarro, Cornell University, Psychology found that people who endorse actions consistent with an ethic of utilitarianism-the view that what is the morally right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences-tend to possess psychopathic and Machiavellian personality traits. Moral Responses Change as People Age
Moral responses change as people age says a new study from the University of Chicago.Changes in brain circuitry play role in moral sensitivity as people grow up
People's moral responses to similar situations change as they age, according to a new study at the University of Chicago that combined brain scanning, eye-tracking and behavioral measures to understand how the brain responds to morally laden scenarios.
More Moral Judgment Current Events and Moral Judgment News Articles
The Moral Judgment of the Child|
by Jean Piaget (Author)
This seminal book by this century's most important development psychologist chronicles the evolution of children's moral thinking from preschool to adolescence, tracing the concepts of lying, cheating, adult authority, punishment, and responsibility, and offering important insights into how they learn--or fail to learn--the difference between right and wrong.
The Practice of Moral Judgment|
by Barbara Herman (Author)
Barbara Herman argues for a radical shift in the way we perceive Kant's ethics. She convincingly reinterprets the key texts, at once allowing Kant to mean what he says while showing that what Kant says makes good moral sense. She urges us to abandon the tradition that describes Kantian ethics as a deontology, a moral system of rules of duty. She finds the central idea of Kantian ethics not in duty but in practical rationality as a norm of unconditioned goodness. This book both clarifies Kant's own theory and adds programmatic vitality to modern moral philosophy.
Science and Ethics: Can Science Help Us Make Wise Moral Judgments?|
by Paul Kurtz (Editor)
In a world confronted by conflicting moral beliefs and values, the question is often raised, "Can science help us to solve our moral problems?" Many people today believe that moral principles are derived from religion. Their critics point out that the great religions often vehemently disagree about what is good, bad, right, and wrong. On the other side of a great divide stand many who say that there are no ethical standards at all and that morality is merely a question of personal taste or cultural relativity.
This volume presents a unique collection of authors who generally maintain that science can help us make wise choices and that an increase in scientific knowledge can help modify our ethical values and bring new ethical principles into social awareness.
Moral Leadership: The Theory and Practice of Power, Judgment and Policy|
by Deborah L. Rhode (Editor), Warren Bennis (Editor)
Moral Leadership brings together in one comprehensive volume essays from leading scholars in law, leadership, psychology, political science, and ethics to provide practical, theoretical policy guidance. The authors explore key questions about moral leadership such as: How do leaders form, sustain, and transmit moral commitments?Under what conditions are those processes most effective?What is the impact of ethics officers, codes, training programs, and similar initiatives?How do standards and practices vary across context and culture?What can we do at the individual, organizational, and societal level to foster moral leadership?Throughout the book, the contributors identify what people know, and only think they know, about the role of ethics in key decision-making positions. The essays...
Sentimental Rules: On the Natural Foundations of Moral Judgment|
by Shaun Nichols (Author)
Sentimental Rules is an ambitious and highly interdisciplinary work, which proposes and defends a new theory about the nature and evolution of moral judgment. In it, philosopher Shaun Nichols develops the theory that emotions play a critical role in both the psychological and the cultural underpinnings of basic moral judgment. Nichols argues that our norms prohibiting the harming of others are fundamentally associated with our emotional responses to those harms, and that such 'sentimental rules' enjoy an advantage in cultural evolution, which partly explains the success of certain moral norms. This has sweeping and exciting implications for philosophical ethics.
Nichols builds on an explosion of recent intriguing experimental work in psychology on our capacity for moral judgment...
The Moral Judgment of the Child|
by Jean Piaget (Author)
Beyond Moral Judgment|
by Alice Crary (Author)
What is moral thought and what kinds of demands does it impose? Alice Crary's book Beyond Moral Judgment claims that even the most perceptive contemporary answers to these questions offer no more than partial illumination, owing to an overly narrow focus on judgments that apply moral concepts (for example, "good," "wrong," "selfish," "courageous") and a corresponding failure to register that moral thinking includes more than such judgments. Drawing on what she describes as widely misinterpreted lines of thought in the writings of Wittgenstein and J. L. Austin, Crary argues that language is an inherently moral acquisition and that any stretch of thought, without regard to whether it uses moral concepts, may express the moral outlook encoded in a person's modes of speech. She challenges us...
Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment|
by John Mikhail (Author)
Is the science of moral cognition usefully modeled on aspects of Universal Grammar? Are human beings born with an innate "moral grammar" that causes them to analyze human action in terms of its moral structure, with just as little awareness as they analyze human speech in terms of its grammatical structure? Questions like these have been at the forefront of moral psychology ever since John Mikhail revived them in his influential work on the linguistic analogy and its implications for jurisprudence and moral theory. In this seminal book, Mikhail offers a careful and sustained analysis of the moral grammar hypothesis, showing how some of John Rawls' original ideas about the linguistic analogy, together with famous thought experiments like the trolley problem, can be used to improve our...
The Moral Judgment|
by Paul W. TAYLOR (Author)
Book discusses the two kinds of moral philosophy, or two branches of ethics, called "normative ethics" and meta-ethics."
Moral Judgment: Does The Abuse Excuse Threaten Our Legal System?|
by James Q. Wilson (Author)
In Moral Judgment, James Q. Wilson demonstrates how our judicial system has compromised its obligation to discriminate between right and wrong. Citing highly publicized verdicts, he makes an erudite case for re-examining the ethical drift of contemporary jurisprudence. Today’s headlines he claims, are proof that our judicial system relentlessly subjects itself to forces that limit its capacity to resolve even the gravest moral issues: judging guilt or innocence in the most grievous capital crimes.Moral Judgment provides a much needed antidote to these ambiguities, and a triumph for one of our most admired ethical scholars.