Where does that tiny voice in your head come from that knows right from wrong?
Moral judgments can be difficult. Consider two possible scenarios, which might make a tense scene in a murder mystery: Grace and Sally are taking a tour of a chemical plant. Grace walks over to the coffee machine to pour some coffee. Sally asks for some too, with sugar.
In the first scenario, the white powder next to the coffee machine is a deadly poison chemical left behind by a scientist, but the container is clearly marked "toxic." Grace believes the white powder is a toxic substance. She put the substance into Sally's coffee. Sally drinks it and dies.
In the second scenario, the white powder is ordinary sugar. The container is clearly labeled "sugar" and Grace believes that it is sugar. She puts the substance into Sally's coffee. Sally drinks the coffee and she is fine.
Pretty simple--the first scenario is morally wrong, the second is not.
Now, what if the labels on the sugar container were wrong? That is, Grace believed the substance in the container labeled "sugar" was indeed sugar, but in fact it contained poison; or the container labeled "toxic" really contained ordinary sugar?
This plot twist generates four possible outcomes to the dramatic scene. In each one, Grace can act in a way that is consistent with her belief of what the jar contains to either (A) intentionally poison Sally or (B) to simply give her sugar, or, again acting consistent with what she believes is in the jar, Grace will either (C) cause Sally accidental harm by giving Sally poison when she believed the container held sugar, or (D) fail in her attempt to murder Sally by giving her what she believed to be poison, when in fact the mislabeled jar contained sugar. No matter how the scene plays out, the morality of Grace's actions cannot be determined simply by observing the outcome of her action (whether or not Sally dies); the essential information in making the proper moral judgment hinges on what Grace believed in her heart was in the container.
How does the human brain make moral judgments that require assessing what the perpetrator believes? Children, whose brains are still developing, do not have adult moral judgment capabilities, and they will typically judge the "wrongness" of an action simply by the outcome of events, not by the intention of the actor. In the scenario above, a child would commonly conclude that if Sally died, the action that led to it was wrong, when in fact, whether the behavior is morally permissible or morally forbidden depends on what the actor believed was in the container. Children are poor at judging another person's beliefs. When you think about it, this is a pretty sophisticated, but essential skill. Where in the brain does this neural circuitry for making such moral judgments reside? Could it be that these circuits are not connected properly in some adult brains?
A study by Michael Miller and colleagues reported in the June issue of Neuropsychologia claims to have found the brain circuit that is essential for making such moral judgments. Their experiments show that this type of moral reasoning depends on the exchange of information between specific regions of the left and right brain.
It is well known that we all have, in fact, two brains inside our skulls connected by a huge bundle of nerve fibers called the corpus callosum. Certain abilities are controlled predominately by either the left or right cerebral hemisphere. Speech, for example is controlled by the left hemisphere in most people. Neuroimaging studies have shown that the sophisticated process of ascribing beliefs and intentions to other people is performed by a spot in the right brain called the right temporal parietal junction. In studying responses of patients in which the corpus callosum connecting the left and right brain had been severed, the researchers found that information about beliefs and intentions from the right brain had to reach the judgmental processes in the left brain to reach the correct moral judgment. With these connections missing, the split-brain patients differed from normal adults in reasoning the morality of an action simply on the basis of the outcome. Just like children, split-brain patients condemned Grace even if she put the poison in Sally's coffee unwittingly, and they did not fault her if Grace's attempt to poison Sally was foiled by incorrect labels on the sugar jar.
These patients were also unable to detect common social faux pas that would embarrass most adults. For example, they could not identify any error in a person telling someone that a gift they had received was hideous, regardless of whether the perpetrator remembered or forgot that the person the actor was speaking to had been the one who had given them the gift.
The study shows that while some brain functions are localized to either the left or right brain, when it comes to moral judgments, reaching the right conclusion requires putting your two brains together.
See: Miller, M.B., et al., (2010) Abnormal moral reasoning in complete and partial colostomy patients. Neuropsychologia 48, 2215-2220.
Kristi Anderson: Delightfully Gray: Embracing Life's Extremes
In such cases, we can consciously bring to their attention the advantages inherent in practicing what can be broadly acknowledged as right for them to see and work upon for their own benefits.
The implications are enormous.
doctors experimenting with VD germs on the Guatamalan citizens 60 years ago and one would be surprised by the difference in opinion between the two groups. Reaching the right conclusion also
requires an unbiased mind.
from 32 channel EEG
[ and fMRI done at other universities ]
correlated with psychological tests and sociological tests
found that under stress the prefrontal cortex goes offline ;prefrontal cortex is the seat of moral reasoning [[ from the correlation established ]
e.g. DR Alarik Arenander said in sleep deprivation [ severe stress ] a soldier can still shoot strraight but doesnt know or care who he is shooting at
similar problems happen in washington stress and wall st stress and drug or alcohol stress
in mapping short term and long term meditators [ Maharishi's TM program ] Travis [ 40 papers published in peer reviewed ] found that global EEG coherence results from regular practice of TM program
or as Hagelin says TM results in integrated functioning of temporal lobe, parietal lobe , occipital lobe , frontal lobe
and that is the basis of all the benefits at tm.org
forward to doctors
tm.org's lack of sense of humor = priceless. This is what they (seriously) posted on their web site, thinking they're using a celebrity to promote TM:
Jerry Seinfeld:
“I’ve been practicing Transcendental Meditation most of my life. I think that does something to your
nervous system. It has given me a calmness I don’t think I had at 19.”
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
(calmness at 19... LOL)
Fixed it for you, Odin ( god of gods ) was pissed that you'd write this...he personally told me so.
Just for future reference, on matters of morality Odin trumps Yahweh every time , I read it somewhere.....so it must be true.
Morality predates humanity, and can be seen in the behavior of our closest living genetic relatives, the chimps and bonobos. These traits developed as a survival tactic in communities that hunted animals. Reciprocity and the golden rule increased chances of survival in a tribal setting. Too bad we no longer feel that camaraderie as a necessary part of our lifestyle.
The real issue in our present culture appears to be the detrimental influence of modern "learning" that conflicts with instinct, causing humans to unlearn inborn traits. The goal of parents and teachers might be focused on reinforcement of instinctual behavior, rather than overlaying modern societal norms that distance us from our inherent natural behavior.
For research in this area, and touching stories of empathy in the wild, I recommend "The Age of Empathy" and "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal, a prominent primatologist.
By analogy, my research in the field of zoopharmacognosy (animal self healing) has persuaded me that wellness-supporting behavior is also instinctual, but has been totally distorted by our modern concept of health care. Research in this area can be found in "The Wellness Project."
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
I wonder if some of our "ethical" problems aren't caused by overcrowding. We seem to have no problem acting ethically within our group, but when competing for resources with other clans or tribes these instincts are over ridden. Just a thought.
Also I am glad that you debunked the myth that our hunter gatherer ancestors had short life spans. It is an error that keeps being repeated over despite evidence to the contrary that is readily available to even layman like me.