The brain affects moral judgement FAR more then we knew

[Justforfun000]

Very interesting. Could have serious ramifications for criminal cases if a lawyer could spin it right....

Link

Brain-damaged people give insights into morality
Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:38PM EDT
By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It's wartime, and an enemy doctor is conducting painful and inevitably fatal experiments on children.

You have two kids, ages 8 and 5. You can surrender one of them within 24 hours or the doctor will kill both. What is the right thing to do?

For most people, this scenario based on one in William Styron's novel "Sophie's Choice" is almost an impossible dilemma. But for a group of people with damage in a part of the brain's frontal lobe that helps govern emotions, the decision was far more clear. They would choose one child for death.

Scientists said on Wednesday a study involving these people has produced unique insights into the brain mechanics of moral decision making and showed that in some key situations emotions play a fundamental role in moral judgments.

The new findings highlighted the role of a region in the front part of the brain below the eyes called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.

Earlier research had pegged this area -- one of the more recently evolved parts of the human brain -- as playing a role in generating social emotions. In fact, the people with damage in this region due to stroke or other causes experienced severely diminished empathy, compassion and sense of guilt.

The new findings published in the journal Nature seem to confirm its central role in guiding certain moral judgments like life-or-death scenarios.

The researchers set out to gauge to what degree emotions govern moral judgments by comparing decisions made by people whose emotions already were crippled by this brain damage to decisions made by people with no such damage.

TOUGH CHOICES

The judgments on what is right and wrong made by these brain-damaged people were similar to the others in some scenarios put before them.

But when asked to make decisions in emotionally wrenching scenarios like the permissibility to kill one's own child to save other people's lives, those with the brain damage were far more likely to accept this utilitarian but harsh solution.

Scientists and philosophers long have debated how people make judgments relating to morality. Are these decisions governed strictly by a calculus of cold, hard facts and logic? Do emotions carry the day?

"This shows a much more subtle, a much more nuanced view, which of course makes the whole problem -- the science of morality -- infinitely more interesting," said Harvard University's Marc Hauser, one of the study's authors.

The study involved six people with damage in this brain region who were presented with 50 scenarios requiring moral judgments, some trivial and some difficult. Their responses were compared to those of 12 others with damage to an unrelated part of the brain and 12 more with no brain damage.

Another wartime scenario involved enemy troops searching for civilians to kill. The people in the study were asked about their willingness to kill their own infant whose crying was drawing the attention of enemy soldiers who would then kill the parent, the baby and people hiding with them.

Again, the people with this brain damage were far more willing to judge killing the baby as the right moral choice.

The scenarios weighed immediate harm or death to one person against certain future harm or death to many. These brain-damaged people regularly showed a willingness to bring harm to an individual, an act others may find repugnant.

"They are perfectly capable of endorsing the kind of extreme high-conflict dilemma in which indeed you would produce harm to someone because there would be greater good coming to a larger group," said study co-author Antonio Damasio, director of the University of Southern California's Brain and Creativity Institute.

"And this is something that human beings in general reject."


© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

[petesampras]

The Prefrontal cortex is envolved in moral decision making? Well fuck me, it's not like that hasn't been known since the turn of the 20th century. Have these guys forgotten that, in the 50s, we used to operate on this part of the brain to cure mental illness - including to cure people of worrying too much about moral issues.

[Darth Wong]

It's not exactly a surprise. The quality of sympathy is central to what most people think of as morality, and sympathy is an emotion which must naturally flow from some aspect of the brain's operation. That's one of the reasons I'm quite certain that psychopaths are simply "broken" human beings, despite all of the mamby-pamby "rehabilitation" bullshit.

[Justforfun000]

That's one of the reasons I'm quite certain that psychopaths are simply "broken" human beings, despite all of the mamby-pamby "rehabilitation" bullshit.

Speaking from experience about knowing someone who fell into the category of sociopath, possibly psychopath, I would tend to agree. I couldn't really believe a human being could live life with such lack of conscience and an overall self-interest to the exclusion of all others. It really opened my eyes. They really DON'T think like the average person. It's a very scary thing to get a true glimpse into a human beings mind that has those qualities. I hope I never run into another person like that again. It was truly chilling.

This person could pull out the tears, the acting skills of a master and lie right to your face with the appearance of ABSOLUTE sincerity. Yet he could be lying completely through his teeth. It was absolutely amazing. I could never do it in a million years.

[TithonusSyndrome]

It's not exactly a surprise. The quality of sympathy is central to what most people think of as morality, and sympathy is an emotion which must naturally flow from some aspect of the brain's operation. That's one of the reasons I'm quite certain that psychopaths are simply "broken" human beings, despite all of the mamby-pamby "rehabilitation" bullshit.

Either "broken", or they haven't enjoyed the benefits of the kind of natural selection that Dawkins described at the end of "The Root Of All Evil?" documentary. Unfortunately for them, it's likely that as they assert their lack of ethical convictions, they'll end up with the short end of the natural selection stick.

[Trytostaydead]

The Prefrontal cortex is envolved in moral decision making? Well fuck me, it's not like that hasn't been known since the turn of the 20th century. Have these guys forgotten that, in the 50s, we used to operate on this part of the brain to cure mental illness - including to cure people of worrying too much about moral issues.

Known about it quite a long long time. Phineas Gage anyone? But whenever a new research is done to further highlight or illuminate it, the news always makes it out like some groundbreaking discovery, sells better.

[mr friendly guy]

The Prefrontal cortex is envolved in moral decision making? Well fuck me, it's not like that hasn't been known since the turn of the 20th century. Have these guys forgotten that, in the 50s, we used to operate on this part of the brain to cure mental illness - including to cure people of worrying too much about moral issues.

Known about it quite a long long time. Phineas Gage anyone? But whenever a new research is done to further highlight or illuminate it, the news always makes it out like some groundbreaking discovery, sells better.

Speaking of Phineas Gage, his injury actually happened in the 19th century, so we kind of knew the frontal lobe affected emotion and behaviour before the 20th century.

[Trytostaydead]

Speaking of Phineas Gage, his injury actually happened in the 19th century, so we kind of knew the frontal lobe affected emotion and behaviour before the 20th century.

Didn't we all watch From Hell where he gets lobotomized?

[petesampras]

Speaking of Phineas Gage, his injury actually happened in the 19th century, so we kind of knew the frontal lobe affected emotion and behaviour before the 20th century.

Didn't we all watch From Hell where he gets lobotomized?

The shoving a metal stake directly though the forehead method of lobotomy, you'd think they could have done a tinsy bit of research before filming that scene.

[Stark]

I don't understand the initial example. How is the situation described an 'impossible choice'? Whatever your criteria, it's an *easy* choice. The idea of being paralysed into inaction with such terrible consequences is alien to me. Difficult choices are those where the outcome is in doubt or unknown, but in this scenario all possible options are available and clear. Have I missed something or am I a soulless killer? How could 'doing nothing' ever, EVER be the right reponse to such a situation? Surely the moral or sympathetic drive would be to resolve the situation as quickly as possible, not take the worst result because you're too weak to make a decision?

[Lord Zentei]

I don't understand the initial example. How is the situation described an 'impossible choice'? Whatever your criteria, it's an *easy* choice. The idea of being paralysed into inaction with such terrible consequences is alien to me. Difficult choices are those where the outcome is in doubt or unknown, but in this scenario all possible options are available and clear. Have I missed something or am I a soulless killer? How could 'doing nothing' ever, EVER be the right reponse to such a situation? Surely the moral or sympathetic drive would be to resolve the situation as quickly as possible, not take the worst result because you're too weak to make a decision?

Seconded. The article seems to be insinuating that the utilitarian decision is somehow suspect because of the association presented.

[wolveraptor]

I too, failed, to see how the decisions the supposedly morally-impaired people made were wrong. I think, however, the article was just trying to highlight the ease with which these people would make what most would consider an extremely difficult, if obvious, choice.

[Stark]

In my opinion such decisions aren't hard to make: they're hard to *live with*.

[B5B7]

Agreed - save one child or save none - it's a variant of a more realistic reallife situation eg with siamese twins where an operation will save one and kill the other.