And religion has the last bastion of its reason for existing shelled mercilessly by science.Study: Morality has biological roots wrote:
Experiment shows good impulses such as altruism are basic to the brain like food and sex.
Shankar Vedantam / Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- The e-mail came from the next room.
"You gotta see this!" Jorge Moll had written. Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., had been scanning the brains of volunteers as they were asked to think about a scenario involving either donating a sum of money to charity or keeping it for themselves.
As Grafman read the e-mail, Moll came bursting in. The scientists stared at each other.
The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex.
Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.
Their 2006 finding that unselfishness can feel good lends scientific support to the admonitions of spiritual leaders such as St. Francis of Assisi, who said, "For it is in giving that we receive." But it is also a dramatic example of the way neuroscience has begun to elbow its way into discussions about morality and has opened up a new window on what it means to be good.
Grafman and others are using brain imaging and psychological experiments to study whether the brain has a built-in moral compass. The results -- many of them published just in recent months -- are showing, unexpectedly, that many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, most likely the result of evolutionary processes that began in other species.
No one can say whether giraffes and lions experience moral qualms in the same way people do because no one has been inside a giraffe's head, but it is known that animals can sacrifice their own interests: One experiment found that if each time a rat is given food, its neighbor receives an electric shock, the first rat will eventually forgo eating.
What the new research is showing is that morality has biological roots -- such as the reward center in the brain that lit up in Grafman's experiment -- that have been around for a very long time.
The more researchers learn, the more it appears that the foundation of morality is empathy. Being able to recognize -- even experience vicariously -- what another creature is going through was an important leap in the evolution of social behavior. And it is only a short step from this awareness to many human notions of right and wrong, says Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago.
The research enterprise has been viewed with interest by philosophers and theologians, but already some worry that it raises troubling questions. Reducing morality and immorality to brain chemistry -- rather than free will -- might diminish the importance of personal responsibility.
Even more important, some wonder whether the very idea of morality is somehow degraded if it turns out to be just another evolutionary tool that nature uses to help species survive and propagate.
Morality Has Biological Roots
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
- Einhander Sn0m4n
- Insane Railgunner
- Posts: 18630
- Joined: 2002-10-01 05:51am
- Location: Louisiana... or Dagobah. You know, where Yoda lives.
Morality Has Biological Roots
- K. A. Pital
- Glamorous Commie
- Posts: 20813
- Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
- Location: Elysium
"Explain altruism then!"
"Easy. It evolved. And now it's hardwired in your brain case."
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!"
You know that alcohol induces chemical processes which impair your reaction. Your mind is there to disallow, say, driving while drunk.
Biochemistry does not absolve the human intellect of responsbility. If anything, it bolsters it.
"Easy. It evolved. And now it's hardwired in your brain case."
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!"
Oh bullshit. Human conscious is precisely capable to understand biochemistry to be MORE responsible, not less.Reducing morality and immorality to brain chemistry -- rather than free will -- might diminish the importance of personal responsibility.
You know that alcohol induces chemical processes which impair your reaction. Your mind is there to disallow, say, driving while drunk.
Biochemistry does not absolve the human intellect of responsbility. If anything, it bolsters it.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
I find this really interesting. Now my question is do criminals have a malfunction portion of their brain related to Altruism so instead of feeling good when others do, they feel pleasure when someone is suffering or afraid?
I've committed the greatest sin, worse than anything done here today. I sold half my soul to the devil. -Ivan Isaac, the Half Souled Knight
Mecha Maniac
Mecha Maniac
- Admiral Valdemar
- Outside Context Problem
- Posts: 31572
- Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
- Location: UK
This is pretty old, as far as I can tell. I came across the supposed origins of morality in evolutionary studies, since it behooves one to help your kin survive for the most part (always a few exceptions).
Still, more information backing this up is more ammunition against arbitrary morality from books that condone rape and murder among other things.
Still, more information backing this up is more ammunition against arbitrary morality from books that condone rape and murder among other things.
Ha, that seems like a bad case of missing the forest for the trees.Stas Bush wrote:Oh bullshit. Human conscious is precisely capable to understand biochemistry to be MORE responsible, not less.Reducing morality and immorality to brain chemistry -- rather than free will -- might diminish the importance of personal responsibility.
You know that alcohol induces chemical processes which impair your reaction. Your mind is there to disallow, say, driving while drunk.
Biochemistry does not absolve the human intellect of responsbility. If anything, it bolsters it.
Though it won't sweep the rug out from underneath faith's moralizing. They'll see this article, admit that it is the way things are but all the same marvel at god's handiwork.
Oh if people wish to believe there's a deity behind biology and evolution, that's their business and isn't much to care about.SPC Brungardt wrote:Though it won't sweep the rug out from underneath faith's moralizing. They'll see this article, admit that it is the way things are but all the same marvel at god's handiwork.
It's the ones that cover their ears going "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU GOD MADE US FROM CLAY LA LA GOD DETERMINES MORALITY LA LA LA!" that are the problem.
"I do not understand why everything in this script must inevitably explode."~Teal'c
Morality has roots in biology? Is this news to anybody? I thought it was perfectly obvious why the poor man's version of morality is "treat everyone like you treat your family."
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
F. Douglass
- wolveraptor
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 4042
- Joined: 2004-12-18 06:09pm
No, but the news is that altruism is as basic an instinct as the sex drive. It's not something that checks your baser urges, as moralizing jerkoffs have long held. In other words, people who are assholes either have messed up brain chemistry, or are purposely ignoring their instincts. Or they're really stupid and don't understand how they're hurting people.Surlethe wrote:Morality has roots in biology? Is this news to anybody? I thought it was perfectly obvious why the poor man's version of morality is "treat everyone like you treat your family."
-
- Village Idiot
- Posts: 4046
- Joined: 2005-06-15 12:21am
- Location: The Abyss
I get in arguments with people who either claim that God Is The Source Of All Morality and that without religion we'd all run wild and eat each other, and with people who claim that morality and every other aspect of the mind is cultural, not biological ( and if you say otherwise you're a Nazi ). It's news to SOME people.Surlethe wrote:Morality has roots in biology? Is this news to anybody?
I remember reading an essay on the psychology of thieves/murderers etc and it alluded that there was a 'psychological switch' (I'm guessing similar to the one reported here) that gave them the feel good rewards ala sex and food (as seen with this example) ... would be interesting to see if these are mutually exclusive or can work at the same time... ie is it possible to be either inherently altruistic or a miser or is it also possible to be someone like Captain Sparrow (from the Pirates Series, as an example) who is rather selfish yet also capable of being altruistic towards others who might be classified as 'needy'..
On the other hand what I was reading might have been bollocks but if there was a shred of truth then it could prove to have some moral implications.
On the other hand what I was reading might have been bollocks but if there was a shred of truth then it could prove to have some moral implications.
All people are equal but some people are more equal than others.
Allow me to preface this by saying that the fact that there are biological roots to morality is blatantly obvious to anyone not blinded by his belief set. Still...
*Skepticism goggles turn on!*
Why should we trust this experimental result? If society trains people to put other peoples' interests before theirs, and consistently rewards them for it (which it does) it ought to form mental connections between altruism and the happyzone. Where is the control experiment in which they tested other things that society breeds into its people?
*Skepticism goggles turn on!*
Why should we trust this experimental result? If society trains people to put other peoples' interests before theirs, and consistently rewards them for it (which it does) it ought to form mental connections between altruism and the happyzone. Where is the control experiment in which they tested other things that society breeds into its people?
- K. A. Pital
- Glamorous Commie
- Posts: 20813
- Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
- Location: Elysium
What is this, Lamarckian something?*Skepticism goggles turn on!*
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
- Academia Nut
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2598
- Joined: 2005-08-23 10:44pm
- Location: Edmonton, Alberta
While skepticism and control experiments are important parts of science, I think the big news part here is that the response is in a very primitive part of the brain where everything is more or less hardwired barring severe trauma. Thus, you shouldn't be able to teach that part of the brain anything really. Of course, I would have to see the full experiment and have chosen bio sci instead of engineering as my major, but that's my take on what they found.Feil wrote:Allow me to preface this by saying that the fact that there are biological roots to morality is blatantly obvious to anyone not blinded by his belief set. Still...
*Skepticism goggles turn on!*
Why should we trust this experimental result? If society trains people to put other peoples' interests before theirs, and consistently rewards them for it (which it does) it ought to form mental connections between altruism and the happyzone. Where is the control experiment in which they tested other things that society breeds into its people?
I love learning. Teach me. I will listen.
You know, if Christian dogma included a ten-foot tall Jesus walking around in battle armor and smashing retarded cultists with a gaint mace, I might just convert - Noble Ire on Jesus smashing Scientologists
You know, if Christian dogma included a ten-foot tall Jesus walking around in battle armor and smashing retarded cultists with a gaint mace, I might just convert - Noble Ire on Jesus smashing Scientologists
- wolveraptor
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 4042
- Joined: 2004-12-18 06:09pm
External inculcation of altruism shouldn't be possible to this level. It'd be like trying to force someone to have a sex drive.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
- Herb Bowie, Reason to Rock
- Herb Bowie, Reason to Rock
What I think Feil might be getting at (although far be it from me to put words in his mouth) is that we know that the brain's structure changes with its environment. Your own example of "severe trauma" is an easy one, and it applies to both physical and psychological trauma. Early language aquisition is another -- there are structural changes in the brain that make it more difficult (PDF warning) for speakers to learn a second language than they did their first. There are also slightly different structural changes made in the language centers of people who are native English speakers vs native Chinese speakers... neuron activation thresholds for certain phonemes found in that language change (I'm having trouble finding a web source on this, as I have a hardcopy book at home that has my original source... I'll see what I can dig up if you'd like).Academia Nut wrote:While skepticism and control experiments are important parts of science, I think the big news part here is that the response is in a very primitive part of the brain where everything is more or less hardwired barring severe trauma. Thus, you shouldn't be able to teach that part of the brain anything really.
But if we know the brain is plastic to at least a limited extent, how do we know that an entire lifetime's inculcation in a social environment doesn't have the ability to rewire certain portions of the brain as well?
That being said, we know that humans evolved in a hunter-gatherer type society where a moderately small number of individuals (~150 per group) were highly interdependent. It shouldn't be too surprising in the least that altruism is deeply tied into our genes if only because of the principle of kin selection. More modern memes for altruism are successful because of the "altruism trick" (people are more likely to imitate those who they like because of that person's altruism), but also because they tie back to this fundamental biological basis for morality -- just as memes associated with food and sex are so easily successful.
Like Turin said, selection between groups (as opposed to selection between individuals) would favor the success of groups of primitive pre-humans.
I can imagine a very extreme case in an environment where there are pack predators, who can potentially hunt two types of prey: small prey animals that are sparse and very difficult to catch, and and slow moving animals that provide tons of meat, but are significantly larger and stronger than a single hypothetical predator.
In the beginning, none of the pack animals like to help each other.
Now imagine that in an isolated corner of this environment, a pack develops a mutation that causes them to go into paroxysms of ecstacy at aiding each other.
The altruistic predators would be much better fed, and would quickly outbreed everything else.
That's a very extreme thought experiment, and differs in terms of the place in the ecology of our hypothetical creatures, but the mechanics ought to be similar for our distant primate ancestors.
I'm fairly surprised this experiment wasn't performed earlier!
I thought such basic instincts have to be hardwired.
I can imagine a very extreme case in an environment where there are pack predators, who can potentially hunt two types of prey: small prey animals that are sparse and very difficult to catch, and and slow moving animals that provide tons of meat, but are significantly larger and stronger than a single hypothetical predator.
In the beginning, none of the pack animals like to help each other.
Now imagine that in an isolated corner of this environment, a pack develops a mutation that causes them to go into paroxysms of ecstacy at aiding each other.
The altruistic predators would be much better fed, and would quickly outbreed everything else.
That's a very extreme thought experiment, and differs in terms of the place in the ecology of our hypothetical creatures, but the mechanics ought to be similar for our distant primate ancestors.
I'm fairly surprised this experiment wasn't performed earlier!
Is that possible?Feil wrote:Why should we trust this experimental result? If society trains people to put other peoples' interests before theirs, and consistently rewards them for it (which it does) it ought to form mental connections between altruism and the happyzone. Where is the control experiment in which they tested other things that society breeds into its people?
I thought such basic instincts have to be hardwired.
"..history has shown the best defense against heavy cavalry are pikemen, so aircraft should mount lances on their noses and fly in tight squares to fend off bombers". - RedImperator
"ha ha, raping puppies is FUN!" - Johonebesus
"It would just be Unicron with pew pew instead of nom nom". - Vendetta, explaining his justified disinterest in the idea of the movie Allspark affecting the Death Star
"ha ha, raping puppies is FUN!" - Johonebesus
"It would just be Unicron with pew pew instead of nom nom". - Vendetta, explaining his justified disinterest in the idea of the movie Allspark affecting the Death Star
Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about group selection. Kin selection is the tendency for individual organisms to be more altruistic to individuals who are closely related to them genetically -- because those individuals are more likely to carry the altruistic individual's genes than those less-closely related. There's a whole mathematical relationship to this (which Richard Dawkins goes into quite a bit in The Selfish Gene but is originally work by Daniel Dennett) which can quantify the rational relative value the individual should assign to itself vs immediate descendants or siblings vs cousins, etc., and these have been more-or-less empirically verified.Cykeisme wrote:Like Turin said, selection between groups (as opposed to selection between individuals) would favor the success of groups of primitive pre-humans.
Group selection, per your illustration:
has been argued by folks like Dawkins to only exist in very extreme cases where there is geographic isolation between populations. (In fact, this is one of the major arguments between Dawkins and Stephen Gould.) I specifically didn't address the group selection argument because I'm not sure if I'm prepared to make it very well without source material handy. But basically it boils down to the fact that the "altruism gene" has to have a way to spread through the group first, which is an argument for selection at the level of the vehicle for the gene (the individual organism) rather than the group.Cykeisme wrote:Now imagine that in an isolated corner of this environment, a pack develops a mutation that causes them to go into paroxysms of ecstacy at aiding each other.
There's also a blurring of lines between genetic and memetic group selection in modern humans, around lines of tribal religion for example, that makes it an even trickier argument for us than it is in other organisms.
- K. A. Pital
- Glamorous Commie
- Posts: 20813
- Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
- Location: Elysium
No, that's lamarckism. Altruism rose via Darwinian mechanisms, which means that altruistic people were more likely to survive than those without this function, and natural selection did it's work.Is that possible?
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
Careful, it's only Lamarckism if those "acquired characteristics" are then passed on to offspring.Stas Bush wrote:No, that's lamarckism. Altruism rose via Darwinian mechanisms, which means that altruistic people were more likely to survive than those without this function, and natural selection did it's work.Is that possible?
Altruism arising via Darwinian selection is certainly the case, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that acquired reinforcement (i.e. memetic or environmental reinforcement) of said altruism can't then alter the brain's structure. You just can't pass that alteration along to your offspring.
Sorry to double-post, but I wanted to point out I didn't intend that as a nitpick (although it comes off that way), but I see a lot of people whip out "Lamarckism!" whenever they see someone arguing for acquired characteristics -- it's inheritance of acquired characteristics that makes something Lamarckism.
No, it's fucking well not. Do you even know what lamarkism is? Whether altruism was inherited from learned traits (which it isn't, because it's impossible) or genetic traits, it would still show up as hardwired traits, and we would still need to know that it wasn't or couldn't be something programmed into the brain during the person's life that made for what appeared, at first glance, to be a genetic trait.
There are good arguments interspersed between your flatulence of the keyboard that support the conclusions of the OP and rebut my skepticism. Try making one, rather than strawmanning me with something you don't even know the definition of and repeating something that we both agree on.
We don't need to know if this is true because the fact that altruism is largely created by naturally selective mechanisms might be bullshit; it isn't bullshit, and it's obvious to anyone with even a tenuous grasp of evolutionary theory that it isn't bullshit. We do need to know if this particular hypothesis - that the lighting up of a certain section of the brain shows it to be genetic, not learned - is bullshit.
There are good arguments interspersed between your flatulence of the keyboard that support the conclusions of the OP and rebut my skepticism. Try making one, rather than strawmanning me with something you don't even know the definition of and repeating something that we both agree on.
We don't need to know if this is true because the fact that altruism is largely created by naturally selective mechanisms might be bullshit; it isn't bullshit, and it's obvious to anyone with even a tenuous grasp of evolutionary theory that it isn't bullshit. We do need to know if this particular hypothesis - that the lighting up of a certain section of the brain shows it to be genetic, not learned - is bullshit.