309 - Lecture 17

The 3 nice things about an evolutionary approach to morality:

1. It emphasizes the social nature of moral intuition 2. It entails a warmer view of human nature. Evolution is about competition, but for humans, that has turned us unto co-operative, empathetic and altruistic creatures. 3. It explains the haphazard way most of us lead our lives without destroying dignity and choice. There are times, often the most important moments in our lives, when we do use reason to override moral intuitions.

Findings from Koenig's article:

3 groups: BDC- brain damaged control (good neuropsych studies have this) VMPC- ventromedial prefrontal cortex damaged patients NC - neurologically normal control 3 different moral types: Non-moral, Impersonal (Spur), Personal (fat man) - non moral and impersonal dilemma all 3 groups same - only difference in personal- tendency for VMPC patients to have a stronger tendency to say they would push. More frequently making the utilitarian decision to push fat man.

Results of Greene (2001) study looking at reaction times between Trolley/Spur, Footbrige/Fat Man, and Non-moral dilemma

Although the utilitarian calculation between the 2 dilemmas is the same, pushing someone makes the Fat Man Dilemma quite different - no difference RT in Trolley/Spur dilemma whether participant decides it is appropriate or not - key difference in Fat Man dilemma: Low RT for those who say it is inappropriate (made the decision quick) and High RT for those who say it is appropriate (took longer to make decision)

What is The Trolley or "Spur" Dilemma?

An out-of-control trolley hurling towards 5 people on the track who face certain death. Fate has landed you the position to press a BUTTON to send it onto the spur, where it would hit only one person - choose not to act: 5 people die - choose to act: 1 dies

Sommer (2010) investigated whether emotion plays a role in these everyday moral conflicts (such as helping someone pick up their groceries when need to catch the train, finding a wallet and returning or not). Participants made a decision while under fMRI and rated how "emotional" each of their decisions felt. Responses were then categorized as "moral" (ie. they helped) or "immoral" (didn't help). Findings? (these methods are similar to Greene's with trolley dilemma, but now with everyday dilemma)

Brain activation: same circuitry engaged in these dilemmas as we saw in the Green data (2 angular gyri, posterior cingulate gyrus, medial prefrontal gyrus). Therefore, basic moral dilemmas, e.g. helping someone at your own expense, engages the same circuitry as the circuitry involved in life-death decisions Self-ratings: when you make the decision not to help, it becomes more emotional

Explanation for the finding that the RT in those who decided it is appropriate to push the fat man is much higher than those who decided it is inappropriate?

Emotion must be a part of moral decisions - like the free effect, if the emotion goes away and they remain thinking about it, they are more likely to make the utilitarian/rational decision that has the same outcome as the trolley dilemma. -for the people that answered quick, they relied on a quick/rapid/intuitive/emotional reaction that it was inappropriate). For those who waited, the emotion cooled off, and without that involved they relied more on a conscious/rational decision-making process.

According to the NYT "The End of Philosophy" article, what shapes moral emotions in the first place (the temple of morality)?

Evolution, co-operating within groups. Many of our moral emotions reflect the history of humans' ability to divide labour, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats. We are all descendants of successful cooperators.

Why are Koenig's findings so special?

Greene's RT data and neurological data are just correlations - by manipulating the presence of absence of this emotional brain region, we have determined that it is necessary to make moral and personal dilemmas

Koenig's took his study one step further by looking at 21 different personal moral dilemmas (like the fat man), 8 of which were low conflict, and the rest of high conflict. What did he find?

In dilemmas 9-21 - plotting of the utilitarian decision (would you do the morally repugnant thing for the greater good?) The people in the VMPC group were more likely to do the morally repugnant thing for a greater utilitarian good. -They are making a different decision because they don't have the emotional response that governs against the utilitarian decision.

Lecture 17

Moral Reasoning - emotion vs. rational thinking in life/death dilemmas (when is it permissible to kill someone? - Koenig "Moral Judgement" article (disturbances in moral behaviour) - Everyday moral judgements (are the little moral decisions different?)

The Patients in the Koenigs (2007) article:

Patients with VMPC lesions exhibit diminished emotional responsivity and reduced social emotions (e.g. compassion, shame and guilt), that are closely associated with moral values, and also exhibit poorly regulated anger and frustration tolerance in certain circumstances. Despite these defects in emotional response and emotional regulation, their capacities for general intelligence, logical reasoning, and declarative knowledge of social and moral norms are preserved.

How does the NYT article "The End of Philosophy" line up with Greene's findings?

The assumption of Socrates and many other ancient philosophers was that moral thinking is mostly a matter of reason and deliberation: Think through moral problems. Find a just principle. Apply it. - The problem with this is that it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behaviour, such as helping others. - Today, a different view of morality is embraced: moral judgements are rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain. Most of us make snap moral judgements about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies (in other words, reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it). The emotions are, in fact, in charge of the temple of morality... and moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest."

Theory behind the Koenigs (2007) article:

The endorsement of pushing the fat man to save 5 (the utilitarian response) requites the subject to overcome an emotional response against inflicting direct harm to another person. - If emotional responses mediated by the VMPC are a critical influence on moral judgement, individuals with VMPC lesions should exhibit a significantly high rate of utilitarian judgements on the emotionally salient, or 'personal' moral scenarios, like the 'fat man' dilemma, but a normal pattern of judgment for the less emotional, or impersonal moral scenarios (which rely on rational conscious deliberation and different brain areas, as per Greene's findings)

How do Greene's findings contradict previous ideas about morality?

The long-standing tradition in moral psychology emphasizes the role of reason in moral judgment. A more recent trend places increased emphasis on emotion. Although both reason and emotion are likely to play important roles in moral judgment, Greene shows that moral dilemmas vary systematically in the extent to which they engage emotional processing and that these variations in emotional engagement influence moral judgment. Therefore, emotion is an important part of moral judgement!

What is The Footbridge or "Fat Man" Dilemma?

The same out-of-control trolley is about to kill five people. You are on a footbridge overlooking the track, next to a fat man. If you PUSH HIM over, his bulk will stop the trolley. Same results: - choose not to act: 5 people die - choose to act: 1 dies

Results of Greene (2001) study looking at brain area activation between Trolley/Spur, Footbrige/Fat Man, and Non-moral dilemma What does this mean?

Trolley/spur dilemma: less activation of emotional regions, more activation of rational regions Footbridge/fat man dilemma: much higher activation in emotional regions Control/non-moral dilemma: more activation of rational areas Therefore, the large person dilemma feels different because it provokes emotionality in the way the spur dilemma does not. People only answer the fat man dilemma in the way they answer the trolley dilemma if their emotion can cool off.

What happened when people chose the immoral thing in Sommer's study?

When people didn't do the right thing (the immoral thing), they felt more emotional (greater negative emotion self-rating) and amygdalas were more active. This is an interesting interpretation this allows: *As much as in these big life/death things we have emotionality saying not to push them. This data shows that perhaps we tend to be good and helpful isn't necessarily because it feels good, but we are trying to avoid feeling bad or emotional if we don't do the right thing).