Science and Morality

[Ahriman238]

I can't find it online to put up, but I recently read a neurology article about morality, and how it seems less a philosophical choice than a heuristic. True, anyone can make grand pronouncements about morality any which way, but when see a crisis in progress, we default to instinct.

The article was framed largely in terms of deontology vs utilitarianism, or moral absolutes against the greater good (Could you kill one man to save five?) It seems that people have an immediate instinctual aversion to killing or even deliberatly harming each other, and those who do choose to do harm for the greater good, in a series of questions posed while hooked up to a brain-monitor, exhibit signs similar to people conciously supressing their reflexes.

At the same time, while most people said that they'd flip a switch or give an order to sacrifice one person to save several, when asked if they'd kill the other person themselves the answer was universally "no."

Interesting stuff. With a number of implications both heartening and disturbing. The obvious question, which the article did not address, is: If people have such a strong, instinctive and universal aversion to intentionally hurting each other, how do we account for the many people who do just that?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I can't find it online to put up, but I recently read a neurology article about morality, and how it seems less a philosophical choice than a heuristic. True, anyone can make grand pronouncements about morality any which way, but when see a crisis in progress, we default to instinct.

The article was framed largely in terms of deontology vs utilitarianism, or moral absolutes against the greater good (Could you kill one man to save five?) It seems that people have an immediate instinctual aversion to killing or even deliberatly harming each other, and those who do choose to do harm for the greater good, in a series of questions posed while hooked up to a brain-monitor, exhibit signs similar to people conciously supressing their reflexes.

At the same time, while most people said that they'd flip a switch or give an order to sacrifice one person to save several, when asked if they'd kill the other person themselves the answer was universally "no."

Interesting stuff. With a number of implications both heartening and disturbing. The obvious question, which the article did not address, is: If people have such a strong, instinctive and universal aversion to intentionally hurting each other, how do we account for the many people who do just that?

This is not exactly shocking. We possess both sets values hard-wired into our brains. There are actually distinct regions of our brains that in a way "advocate" each position (deontology vs utilitarianism) and depending on the conditions, one wins out over the other (each basically inhibits the other in mutual negative feedback loops, so the "victor" is the one subjected to greater stimulation). This is why it is easy to make utilitarian decisions which might harm someone you dont know, vs having to make the exact same decision with someone you know or can see on the chopping block.