Posted on 06/11/2008 2:56:58 PM PDT by blam
Who Shalt Not Kill? Brain Power Leads To Level-headedness When Faced With Moral Dilemmas
ScienceDaily (Jun. 11, 2008) — Should a sergeant sacrifice a wounded private on the battlefield in order to save the rest of his troops? Is euthanasia acceptable if it prevents needless suffering? Many of us will have to face some sort of extreme moral choice such as these at least once in our life. And we are also surrounded by less dramatic moral choices everyday: Do I buy the hybrid? Do I vote for a particular presidential candidate? Unfortunately, very little is known beyond philosophical speculation about how people understand morality and make decisions on moral issues.
Past research suggests that moral dilemmas can evoke strong emotions in people and tend to override thoughtful deliberation and reasoning. However, more recent neuroimaging research has discovered that sometimes people are capable of voluntarily suppressing these emotional reactions, allowing for decisions based on reasoning and careful deliberation of the consequences of one’s actions.
A new study appearing in the June issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, appears to support this neuroimaging evidence. Adam Moore of Princeton University and his colleagues Brian Clark and Michael Kane of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro tested this notion by measuring individuals’ working memory capacity -- essentially their ability to mentally juggle multiple pieces of information. The idea was that people who could best juggle information would be able to control their emotion and engage in “deliberative processing.”
The researchers then asked participants to make decisions in emotionally provocative situations. One example:
“A runaway trolley hurtles toward five unaware workmen; the only way to save them is to push a heavy man (standing nearby on a footbridge) onto the track where he will die in stopping the trolley.”
In these emotion laden scenarios, people with high working memory capacity were not only more consistent in their judgments but their answers indicated that they were considering the consequences of their choices in a way that the other participants were not.
“This suggests that emotional reactions to moral issues can drive our judgments and motivate action but can also blind us to the consequences of our decisions in some cases,” write the authors. Ultimately, people with higher working memory can be relied upon to make more consistent decisions and are able to more deeply consider consequences in these highly charged instances.
Adapted from materials provided by Association for Psychological Science.
is another “faith and reason don’t mix” harangue?
HUH? There's no equipment around to push/throw on the tracks? Have to push the man????
Why couldn't the author throw himself in front of the train? That would have been more efficient and more likely to succeed, than relying on objects of whom the only information available is limited to a quick glance. I guess part of the higher intelligence also means ruling out self sacrifice.
It depends on whether or not there’s national healthcare. If there’s national healthcare, it’s your moral and ethical obligation to throw/push the heavy dude on the tracks instead of sacrificing yourself (provided he’s heftier than thou, of course) for the benefit of the entire system. That’s why you need all the higher cognitive function—to quickly determine who weighs more; you or the other guy, then decide who gets to become the speed bump.
If the trolley is moving slowly enough that one fat guy can stop it, all you should have to do is yell at the workmen to look out for the trolley. They should be able to move themselves off the track as fast as you can get the fat guy onto it.
“Here is my gun. There is your money. What does your Science say about me using my gun to take your money? Either Nothing, or Survival of the Fittest. Bang. Thank you.”
You're absolutely right. Science is the problem. If there was no science, there wouldn't be any trolleys to run over poor unsuspecting workmen.
YEAh....I had that thought too......what a ludicrous report/study.
So when Hillary is punishing one of her lieutenants for messing up, and draws her disintegrator gun and says, “Now I will show you the price of failure!”, before zapping some peon standing there with a tray full of hors d’oeuvres, it was a cold, calculating decision instead of an emotional one?
My experience is that those who consider themselves cerebral are often incapable of actually taking action. i.e. John Kerry. This trait is not a virtue.
I'll take the guy who knows what to do because of a strong moral compass over the brainiac every time when I need someone to cover my back or protect my daughter.
Maybe it would work just as well to throw a ham on the tracks and let the fat guy go for it?
“And we are also surrounded by less dramatic moral choices everyday: Do I buy the hybrid? “
Buying a hybrid is not a moral choice. Did I miss “should I get an abortion?”
Lol!!
I was, of course, just making the point that Science has little if anything to say about morality. Darwinism suggests I should kill you and take your stuff. If you don’t like that, Mr. Scientist, tough. That’s all you’ve got.
Now Religion, on the other hand, offers you protection, dear Scientist. Will you agree with me that Religion and Science each have their own sphere, or shall I kill you and take your stuff?
Darwinism suggests that if you're dumb enough to think that, the rest of us are better off without you.
Throw yourself on the tracks. If you have time to push a fat man, you have time to jump.
Scream as loud as you can. If the trolley is close enough that the only way to save them is push the heavy man, it is close enough for them to hear. What's that? They are wearing ear protection? Then I would shove the load of steel girders that are on the bridge down onto the track. Where did I get the steel girders? Same place you got the ear protection.
If you'd kill me and take my stuff over that kind of disagreement, I believe I'd kill you before I'd take up that religion.
One of the big problems is people continually mis-translating the commandment (including the King James Version). The word really mean, Thou shalt do no murder. First degree murder. The proof of that is several sentences later, the Hebrews are told when to kill people and for what.
When immediate action is required and no time for reflection, then you find out who you are. If there is time for reflection then you get to mold your character a little.
The report is about neuroimaging. The problem with neuroimaging is that it cannot tell what the thoughts are but only which part of the brain is most active. The patient must also report. Some think that some day they will be able to actually read minds with neuroimaging, but it is not in the cards. It’s not a total waste of research either since some useful results have come from this in tightly controlled experimental situations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.