Human Brain Source of Morality?

[Michael]

Here's an interesting article...

Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments.


Abstract

When we judge an action as morally right or wrong, we rely on our capacity to infer the actor's mental states (e.g., beliefs, intentions). Here, we test the hypothesis that the right temporoparietal junction (RTPJ), an area involved in mental state reasoning, is necessary for making moral judgments. In two experiments, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to disrupt neural activity in the RTPJ transiently before moral judgment (experiment 1, offline stimulation) and during moral judgment (experiment 2, online stimulation). In both experiments, TMS to the RTPJ led participants to rely less on the actor's mental states. A particularly striking effect occurred for attempted harms (e.g., actors who intended but failed to do harm): Relative to TMS to a control site, TMS to the RTPJ caused participants to judge attempted harms as less morally forbidden and more morally permissible. Thus, interfering with activity in the RTPJ disrupts the capacity to use mental states in moral judgment, especially in the case of attempted harms.

Source (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/11/0914826107.abstract)

I haven't read the article yet, but I figured I share it anyway since the issue is one that is often under discussion here.

[Lily]

The researcher based this study on a small sample, just eight people; however, the results are interesting. I've often wondered, though, how much of the hard wiring in our brain is actually hard wired at birth or has been altered by our experiences. I honestly don't know if the question of nature vs. nurture is a black or white question because there are too many variables that are still not resolved.

Scientists know, for example, that certain drugs can change the chemistry of the brain, can change how the brain and body systems process information. What other substances and/or outside stimuli can alter the brain? Hormones in the food we eat? Pollutants in the air? Stress? States of altered homeostatsis?

Cognitive behaviorists have been trying to answer the question of nature vs. nurture for a long time. Are we truly a blank slate? A noble savage? Ghosts in the machine? This study is perhaps another small piece of the puzzle, but with the sample so small, more research is needed.

[Zarquon]

I honestly don't know if the question of nature vs. nurture
I thought that debate was settled as a draw? its both and not either?
This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, many modern psychologists consider the question naive - representing an outdated state of knowledge.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_vs_nurture#cite_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_vs_nurture#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_vs_nurture#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_vs_nurture#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_vs_nurture#cite_note-4)
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_vs_nurture)

[Zarquon]

As for the capacity for moral judgment being present in most healthy human beings biologically and shaped by nurture, I'd say duh!

[SMadsen]

"Here, we test the hypothesis that the right temporoparietal junction (RTPJ), an area involved in mental state reasoning, is necessary for making moral judgments ... Thus, interfering with activity in the RTPJ disrupts the capacity to use mental states in moral judgment, especially in the case of attempted harms."
Cool, so those who say that morality stems from religion are actually saying that if I become religious, I will get a temporoparietal junction in the right side of my brain?

[Michael]

As for the capacity for moral judgment being present in most healthy human beings biologically and shaped by nurture, I'd say duh!
My take on the issue is that we're not talking about human 'capacity' for moral judgement (that's obvious).

What this suggests is that the human brain is the ORIGIN/SOURCE of morality.

(notwithstanding ID or creationist arguments to the contrary).

In other words, as SMadsen noted, a sharp crack on a specific spot on your head might wipe out any morality you might have had.

[Non Sequitur]

Cool, so those who say that morality stems from religion are actually saying that if I become religious, I will get a temporoparietal junction in the right side of my brain?

Theologically, I get frustrated when people say morality comes from Christianity. Sure that is applicable for a few things, but it still confuses most others.

[dilettante]

...
What this suggests is that the human brain is the ORIGIN/SOURCE of morality.

(notwithstanding ID or creationist arguments to the contrary).

In other words, as SMadsen noted, a sharp crack on a specific spot on your head might wipe out any morality you might have had.
[/quote]

I think that goes rather beyond anything this study even attempts to demonstrate, based on the abstract. Their claims are that the right temporoparietal junction is necessary for assessing an actor's mental state. And since an actor's mental state (esp. his intentions) are a component of most moral judgments, impairing one's ability to assess such mental states obviously impairs one's moral reasoning.

But that fact that part of the brain is necessary to assess actor's mental states (or even to process moral judgments at all) doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that the brain is the "origin/source" or morality any more than the fact that part of the brain is necessary to process color (or sound, or math, or logical judgments, or whatever) means that the brain is ipso facto the origin/source of color (or whatever). After all, a sharp enough crack to the head will wipe out your ability to process anything at all, but that hardly means that the brain is the origin/source of reality.

And anyway, all that aside, wouldn't an ID/creationist just counter that 'an intelligent designer'/God was the source/origin of the brain itself? I don't think they'd be even remotely phased.

[Michael]

Here's an interesting article...



Source (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/11/0914826107.abstract)

I haven't read the article yet, but I figured I share it anyway since the issue is one that is often under discussion here.
My apologies. :o

I didn't realize that this article was locked behind a paywall when I posted it - I can't read it without paying $10.

Doesn't really matter anyway since evaluating that paper would likely be entirely outside my expertise and thus not very meaningful for that reason.

[SMadsen]

And anyway, all that aside, wouldn't an ID/creationist just counter that 'an intelligent designer'/God was the source/origin of the brain itself? I don't think they'd be even remotely phased.
Hehe .. due to the necessary perfection of divinity, this combined with the brain being the source of morality would attribute a- and immorality to a physical defect. With a physically healthy brain, no person could act immoral.

[Michael]

Hehe .. due to the necessary perfection of divinity, this combined with the brain being the source of morality would attribute a- and immorality to a physical defect. With a physically healthy brain, no person could act immoral.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

My point being that long ago (Middle Ages), this definitely was a theological principal - ugly or deformed people were believed to be immoral by defintion.

[Mind's Eye]

At first blush, this sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
This study places " morality " in the eye of the beholder.

A work-around from the admittance fee required from Michael's link did find some useful info vis-a-vis the study's basic outline.

Moral judgments can be altered ... by magnets

By disrupting brain activity in a particular region, neuroscientists can sway people’s views of moral situations.
To make moral judgments about other people, we often need to infer their intentions — an ability known as “theory of mind.” For example, if one hunter shoots another while on a hunting trip, we need to know what the shooter was thinking: Was he secretly jealous, or did he mistake his fellow hunter for an animal?

MIT neuroscientists have now shown they can influence those judgments by interfering with activity in a specific brain region — a finding that helps reveal how the brain constructs morality.

Previous studies have shown that a brain region known as the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) is highly active when we think about other people’s intentions, thoughts and beliefs. In the new study, the researchers disrupted activity in the right TPJ by inducing a current in the brain using a magnetic field applied to the scalp. They found that the subjects’ ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people’s intentions — for example, a failed murder attempt — was impaired.

The researchers, led by Rebecca Saxe, MIT assistant professor of brain and cognitive sciences, report their findings (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/11/0914826107.full.pdf+html) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of March 29. Funding for the research came from The National Center for Research Resources, the MIND Institute, the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging (http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/martinos/aboutUs/index.php), the Simons Foundation (http://sfari.org/) and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation.

The study offers “striking evidence” that the right TPJ, located at the brain’s surface above and behind the right ear, is critical for making moral judgments, says Liane Young, lead author of the paper. It’s also startling, since under normal circumstances people are very confident and consistent in these kinds of moral judgments, says Young, a postdoctoral associate in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences.

“You think of morality as being a really high-level behavior,” she says. “To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and change people’s moral judgments is really astonishing.”

Thinking of others

Saxe first identified the right TPJ’s role in theory of mind a decade ago — a discovery that was the subject of her MIT PhD thesis in 2003. Since then, she has used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that the right TPJ is active when people are asked to make judgments that require thinking about other people’s intentions.

In the new study, the researchers wanted to go beyond fMRI experiments to observe what would happen if they could actually disrupt activity in the right TPJ. Their success marks a major step forward for the field of moral neuroscience, says Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, professor of philosophy at Duke University.

“Recent fMRI studies of moral judgment find fascinating correlations, but Young et al usher in a new era by moving beyond correlation to causation,” says Sinnott-Armstrong, who was not involved in this research.

The researchers used a noninvasive technique known as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to selectively interfere with brain activity in the right TPJ. A magnetic field applied to a small area of the skull creates weak electric currents that impede nearby brain cells’ ability to fire normally, but the effect is only temporary.

In one experiment, volunteers were exposed to TMS for 25 minutes before taking a test in which they read a series of scenarios and made moral judgments of characters’ actions on a scale of one (absolutely forbidden) to seven (absolutely permissible).

In a second experiment, TMS was applied in 500-milisecond bursts at the moment when the subject was asked to make a moral judgment. For example, subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe, even if she ends up making it across safely. In such cases, a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless, even though it appears he intended to do harm.

In both experiments, the researchers found that when the right TPJ was disrupted, subjects were more likely to judge failed attempts to harm as morally permissible. Therefore, the researchers believe that TMS interfered with subjects’ ability to interpret others’ intentions, forcing them to rely more on outcome information to make their judgments.

“It doesn’t completely reverse people’s moral judgments, it just biases them,” says Saxe.

When subjects received TMS to a brain region near the right TPJ, their judgments were nearly identical to those of people who received no TMS at all.

While understanding other people’s intentions is critical to judging them, it is just one piece of the puzzle. We also take into account the person’s desires, previous record and any external constraints, guided by our own concepts of loyalty, fairness and integrity, says Saxe.

“Our moral judgments are not the result of a single process, even though they feel like one uniform thing,” she says. “It’s actually a hodgepodge of competing and conflicting judgments, all of which get jumbled into what we call moral judgment.”

Saxe’s lab is now studying the role of theory of mind in judging situations where the attempted harm was not a physical threat. The researchers are also doing a study on the role of the right TPJ in judgments of people who are morally lucky or unlucky. For example, a drunk driver who hits and kills a pedestrian is unlucky, compared to an equally drunk driver who makes it home safely, but the unlucky homicidal driver tends to be judged more morally blameworthy.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/moral-control-0330.html

The path to Hell is paved with cell phone magnetic fields.

[Michael]

At first blush, this sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
This study places " morality " in the eye of the beholder.
I can't imagine "morality" existing anywhere else. :shrug:

The path to Hell is paved with cell phone magnetic fields.
Indeed, this does look like a potential danger to society!

[Mind's Eye]

.......When we judge an action as morally right or wrong, we rely on our capacity to infer the actor's mental states (e.g., beliefs, intentions).

Originally Posted by Mind's Eye http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/images/buttons/green/viewpost.gif (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=26237#post26237)
At first blush, this sounds like a bunch of malarkey.
This study places " morality " in the eye of the beholder.
I can't imagine "morality" existing anywhere else. :shrug:

I don't think that you are catching my drift.

Your initial entry portrayed morality as an outside-looking-in proposition.

Although society can have a great influence on an individual's actions, in no way would I advance any notion that morality be put to a majority vote.

My morals/conscience is mine to shape as I please. Society be damned.

[Michael]

I don't think that you are catching my drift.

Your initial entry portrayed morality as an outside-looking-in proposition.
Actually, I was merely acknowledging that morality is generally, or often, presumed to originate from a source external to the individual (i.e. God, the Bible, nature, society, religion, culture, family, etc.).

It has long been my argument that morality originates entirely within the subjective individual, but can and does operate on a societal level, through institutions, laws and social mores, all of which are ad hoc 'codifications' of subjective human morality.

Although society can have a great influence on an individual's actions, in no way would I advance any notion that morality be put to a majority vote.
But it is put to a majority vote all the time. That's what we call government.

Now one can make the argument that morality ought, or ought not, to be a matter of democratic rule-making, but I respectfully submit that is exactly what our society does do.

My morals/conscience is mine to shape as I please. Society be damned.
Indeed it is. It also shapes society. Ergo, society is damned or glorified according to your moral contribution. :)

(I love the smell of Nietzsche in the morning... makes me think of morality!) :D

[Michael]

Thinking further about this topic, in the most general sense, I'm thinking that the findings here are really quite expected.

That is to say, the brain is an organic object that can certainly be affected by physical damage or external forces. The brain normally uses 'electrical' type pulses to function so any application of external electromagnetic pulses to the brain would naturally be expected to cause a disruption or distortion of normal brain activity (and thus, the processing of individual 'morality' judgements).

This result would be consistent with either proposition for the source or function of morality (either internal or external origins), thus it can provide no 'evidence' either way.

Carrying this thought one step further, I might add that this study might suggest that morality is NOT genetically inherited - since the study suggests that these choices are perhaps maleable rather than 'fixed'. But then again, I'd say the 'genetic' theory of origin for morality has always been the weakest option.

[Mind's Eye]

Actually, I was merely acknowledging that morality is generally, or often, presumed to originate from a source external to the individual (i.e. God, the Bible, nature, society, religion, culture, family, etc.).

It has long been my argument that morality originates entirely within the subjective individual, but can and does operate on a societal level, through institutions, laws and social mores, all of which are ad hoc 'codifications' of subjective human morality.
There is no such thing as a external source of morality. All of your examples ( excepting " nature " ) originated in the thoughts of one individual's belief in how things should be - his or her morals.
You will need to elucidate re: nature before I am able to agree or disagree on that specific point. But, if you are referring to the earth's magnetic field having an influence upon our morals - that is highly likely. In no way proveable, but I think it does. But, in this thread, I do believe we are limiting our discussions to external HUMAN forces.

One's morals are able to influence other segments of a society - up to a point. There are a great many laws or rules of which many do not abide. Does that lead them to feel they are committing some immoral act in not doing so? Not likely.
Rationalizations often trump morals, even for those who otherwise feel bound to comply.
I am sure that you, as well, feel that some laws are unnecessary.

Morals succeed on that great of a level only if we, as individuals, allow us to be controlled in such a manner.


But it is put to a majority vote all the time. That's what we call government.

Now one can make the argument that morality ought, or ought not, to be a matter of democratic rule-making, but I respectfully submit that is exactly what our society does do.
Yet I feel in no way bound, morally or otherwise, by those rules in which I disagree. Especially since morals are often a moving target.

Indeed it is. It also shapes society. Ergo, society is damned or glorified according to your moral contribution. :)

(I love the smell of Nietzsche in the morning... makes me think of morality!) :D

My conscience will shape society only if I force others to live under those morals. I would not submit others to follow me- my moral compass only shows me the way to travel thru life.

********************************

Morality is neither entirely innate nor is it entirely external.
Morality is the basest of human survical instinsts - basically right or wrong.

If an act is followed by a reward, it is right, or good.
If an act is followed by a punishment, it is wrong, or bad.

Is bad behavior sometimes rewarded ? Of course. But then it can't be bad, now can it ?

[Michael]

Moderator's Note: The thread discussion has moved far away from the OP - so I'm moving this thread out of the Science section and into the Religion & Moral Issues section since the discussion is turning entirely towards a general discussion of morality.

There is no such thing as a external source of morality.
Since you are making an emphatic claim of 'fact', please share with us the reasoned logic that demonstrates this conclusion.

I don't think you can do that - because it is an essentially impossible task. Please feel free to prove me incorrect here. :)

All of your examples ( excepting " nature " ) originated in the thoughts of one individual's belief in how things should be - his or her morals.
Again, that is a subjective assertion. It is certainly a plausible explanation, but without some physical evidence or 'logical proof', one cannot be certain that your subjective assertion is any more correct than some subjective assertion to the contrary.

If you reverse the subjective bias of your statement, it becomes almost identical to a religious claim that morality originates entirely from God (or gods, or some ambiguously defined creator).

How can one claim to know - with certainty - which one is correct and which one is in error?

You will need to elucidate re: nature before I am able to agree or disagree on that specific point. But, if you are referring to the earth's magnetic field having an influence upon our morals - that is highly likely. In no way proveable, but I think it does. But, in this thread, I do believe we are limiting our discussions to external HUMAN forces.
As I noted above, it has long been my argument that morality has 100% human origin.

As such, I have no need or interest to defend the proposition that 'nature' is the origin of human morality. I didn't claim that it is. I merely observed that it is a commonly asserted argument.

As for external human forces, that's not necessarily so. God/creator and/or some other supernatural phenomena are often asserted as being the 'true' source of morality. I don't agree with that, but quite a few people on this planet certainly do believe it so (there are literally several billion of them!).

That is why the primary line of argument regarding the origin of morality is between those who believe it originates entirely with humans and those who believe it originates from some non-human source.

One's morals are able to influence other segments of a society - up to a point. There are a great many laws or rules of which many do not abide. Does that lead them to feel they are committing some immoral act in not doing so? Not likely.
Rationalizations often trump morals, even for those who otherwise feel bound to comply.
I am sure that you, as well, feel that some laws are unnecessary.

What is the difference between committing an immoral act and illegal act? How can you tell which is which? Do you 'feel' the difference emotionally?

Morals succeed on that great of a level only if we, as individuals, allow us to be controlled in such a manner.
Do you hold small children to be morally responsible for allowing themselves to be toilet-trained?

My point is that the game of controlling you in such a manner is played on you while you were way too young to realize it or make any rational choice about it. Human culture is fed to you with your mother's milk.

Yet I feel in no way bound, morally or otherwise, by those rules in which I disagree. Especially since morals are often a moving target.
Which rules? Are you talking about morals or laws? And if morals, which moral system are you referring to?

As for morality being a moving target, it is possible that may be one's own failure to perceive the essential clarity that is at fault. Perhaps it is your vision that is blurry (or moving around) and morality itself is clear and stable? I don't subscribe to that view, but it is a valid argument one can make.

My conscience will shape society only if I force others to live under those morals. I would not submit others to follow me- my moral compass only shows me the way to travel thru life.
And if that is true, then there are 6 billion equally valid moral compasses existing on this planet, each one equally valid, subjective and conflicting.

And to bring this around back to the topic of the OP, a good sharp knock on a certain spot on your head and your whole moral outlook could change upside down!


********************************

Morality is neither entirely innate nor is it entirely external.
Morality is the basest of human survical instinsts - basically right or wrong.

If an act is followed by a reward, it is right, or good.
If an act is followed by a punishment, it is wrong, or bad.

Is bad behavior sometimes rewarded ? Of course. But then it can't be bad, now can it ?
If you define morality as the basest of human survival instincts, then you are asserting that morality is entirely innate.

As for your questions of reward and punishment, I haven't a clue what the answer is or ought to be, since I consider all such matters to be relative and subjective. That is to say, there are six billion theoretically valid answers to the question. Might as well flip a coin.

[Mind's Eye]

There is no such thing as a external source of morality.
Since you are making an emphatic claim of 'fact', please share with us the reasoned logic that demonstrates this conclusion.
I don't think you can do that - because it is an essentially impossible task. Please feel free to prove me incorrect here.


All of your examples ( excepting " nature " ) originated in the thoughts of one individual's belief in how things should be - his or her morals.
Again, that is a subjective assertion. It is certainly a plausible explanation, but without some physical evidence or 'logical proof', one cannot be certain that your subjective assertion is any more correct than some subjective assertion to the contrary.
If you reverse the subjective bias of your statement, it becomes almost identical to a religious claim that morality originates entirely from God (or gods, or some ambiguously defined creator).
How can one claim to know - with certainty - which one is correct and which one is in error?
Impossibilities exist only for those who accept that fact.
One's morality which is shaped by external forces is not actually so - social shames or legal repercussions may shape one's actions, but if those external forces were absent;
or if the risk-versus-reward ratio is high enough, the individual will proceed regardless.
I sense that you are conflating morals with peer pressure in this discussion. True morals ( IMO ) are shaped in a vacuum.

You will need to elucidate re: nature before I am able to agree or disagree on that specific point. But, if you are referring to the earth's magnetic field having an influence upon our morals - that is highly likely. In no way proveable, but I think it does. But, in this thread, I do believe we are limiting our discussions to external HUMAN forces.
As I noted above, it has long been my argument that morality has 100% human origin.
As such, I have no need or interest to defend the proposition that 'nature' is the origin of human morality. I didn't claim that it is. I merely observed that it is a commonly asserted argument.
As for external human forces, that's not necessarily so. God/creator and/or some other supernatural phenomena are often asserted as being the 'true' source of morality. I don't agree with that, but quite a few people on this planet certainly do believe it so (there are literally several billion of them!).
That is why the primary line of argument regarding the origin of morality is between those who believe it originates entirely with humans and those who believe it originates from some non-human source.
Well, you raised the notion; I will need to go back to see under what context.
But I did not posit that " nature " is the sole origin of morality - I do not know what could have led you to such a conclusion.
But seeing as how this topic began in noting how magnetic fields have an influence upon human " morals " in ways which have no quantitative nor qualitative measurements available to us, I do believe that " nature " in the form of the earth's magnetic field is relevant if only as an unknown.
It is only human nature, after all.
I guess that I fall into a third group - one which will argue that the debate should be whether morality originates within the individual or whether it is formed collectively.


One's morals are able to influence other segments of a society - up to a point. There are a great many laws or rules of which many do not abide. Does that lead them to feel they are committing some immoral act in not doing so? Not likely.
Rationalizations often trump morals, even for those who otherwise feel bound to comply.
I am sure that you, as well, feel that some laws are unnecessary.
What is the difference between committing an immoral act and illegal act? How can you tell which is which? Do you 'feel' the difference emotionally?
Public shame or legal punishment are tools used by others to shape or change the individual's actions. Regardless of the form, the consequence seeks the same result.

Morals succeed on that great of a level only if we, as individuals, allow us to be controlled in such a manner.
Do you hold small children to be morally responsible for allowing themselves to be toilet-trained?
My point is that the game of controlling you in such a manner is played on you while you were way too young to realize it or make any rational choice about it. Human culture is fed to you with your mother's milk.
Again, you seem to be equating control with morals.

Yet I feel in no way bound, morally or otherwise, by those rules in which I disagree. Especially since morals are often a moving target.
Which rules? Are you talking about morals or laws? And if morals, which moral system are you referring to?
As for morality being a moving target, it is possible that may be one's own failure to perceive the essential clarity that is at fault. Perhaps it is your vision that is blurry (or moving around) and morality itself is clear and stable? I don't subscribe to that view, but it is a valid argument one can make.
Doesn't matter. The 10 commandments have been codified.
Since neither of us subscribe to the silly notion that macular degeneration is the cause of the ever-changing individual morality,
I will leave it at that - morality, be it an individual's or society's as a whole, is not set in stone.

My conscience will shape society only if I force others to live under those morals. I would not submit others to follow me- my moral compass only shows me the way to travel thru life.
And if that is true, then there are 6 billion equally valid moral compasses existing on this planet, each one equally valid, subjective and conflicting.
And to bring this around back to the topic of the OP, a good sharp knock on a certain spot on your head and your whole moral outlook could change upside down!
It is true, and there are.


********************************
Morality is neither entirely innate nor is it entirely external.
Morality is the basest of human survical instinsts - basically right or wrong.
If an act is followed by a reward, it is right, or good.
If an act is followed by a punishment, it is wrong, or bad.
Is bad behavior sometimes rewarded ? Of course. But then it can't be bad, now can it ?
If you define morality as the basest of human survival instincts, then you are asserting that morality is entirely innate.
As for your questions of reward and punishment, I haven't a clue what the answer is or ought to be, since I consider all such matters to be relative and subjective. That is to say, there are six billion theoretically valid answers to the question. Might as well flip a coin.
I guess that I should have been more verbose in my definition.
Morality, as a definition, has been affixed to the basest of human survival instinsts - the fight-or-flight response.
Instinctual, or genetic, responces are co-opted from one's true morals into what society deems acceptable as " morality ".
***
I do realize that I may be introducing a fatal tangential here, but I view altruism as a selfish act. That is true both in the animal kingdom and in the human race.
****
BackOnTopic >
you shouldn't be so flippant in your reply vis-a-vis reward and punishment. You cannot arrive at an answer precisely because there are 6 billion +/- theoretically valid answers, which have been shaped by 6 billion sets of morals - the answer is an individual endeavor. Only when one stops to contemplate how others will judge his answer does that morality become influenced. It then ceases to be his morality.

[Non Sequitur]

BackOnTopic >
you shouldn't be so flippant in your reply vis-a-vis reward and punishment. You cannot arrive at an answer precisely because there are 6 billion +/- theoretically valid answers, which have been shaped by 6 billion sets of morals - the answer is an individual endeavor. Only when one stops to contemplate how others will judge his answer does that morality become influenced. It then ceases to be his morality.

Just making sure I am reading you right before I protest, are you saying that everyone's morality is equally valid? I would be highly uncomfortable with that idea applied to certain historical personages.

[JHC]

Hi!.

Morality is imposed by the collective population. You may deem that your own morality is better or worse but that is irrelevant. The only morality that matters is the one that directs an individuals actions within the population.

Morality, immorality or amorality does not apply to an isolated individual does it? (On a desert island it doesn't matter if you run around naked, masturbate, spew obscenities, or depict the prophet Mohammed in a bear suit - the only consequence would come from your own mind). In other words, your morality does not come from your own mind, it comes from everyone else's. The morality that comes from your mind is what you would wish to impose on them.

Second, interpretations of this study are far too broad. The study reveals that if you fuck with a particular part of the brain that is used for a particular purpose, that specific function is inhibited. Of course. This is how lobotomies gained such aplomb after WWII. 18,000 people were lobotomized in the US from 1939 to 1951.
What the study really shows is that people that can not interpret the actions of others are less judgmental about that other's actions.

What if you were incapable of seeing the expressions on someone's face? Would you not also be inhibited in judging their intentions?

I'd like to see the same study done except that the people with the magnet on their head are asked to interpret an apparently altruistic act. Would they see the person offering a ride to a stranger as a threat or good Samaritan?

Multiple factors contribute to the way we behave but they all resolve back to the physiological accouterments with which we are born.
For instance: I have Crohn's disease. It has something to do with heredity and many genes are identified and implicated in the expression of the disease. However, many people have the same genetic alleles and do not have the disease. It is believed that stress plays another significant factor in the Crohn's phenotype.
Stress is a significant factor in many diseases. When I say stress, I am talking about the physiological/emotional reaction of the body to repeated stimuli. This includes psychological/emotional stress which induces hormone responses (that is why we cry, sweat, tremble in fear, get dry mouth, have increased heart rate, etc...). I am also talking about long term illness or repeated infections or physical injury.

Likewise, our moral development begins with our brains developed from the mesenchyme, developed from differentiation of the blastocyst cells, developed from the process of vertical DNA transfer from meiosis. :D
On top of which is layered the evolution of society/culture. And on top of that is the direct learned behavior.

Needless to say, an experiment that equates morality with a specific portion of human anatomy is facile.

[Non Sequitur]

Hi!.

Morality is imposed by the collective population. You may deem that your own morality is better or worse but that is irrelevant. The only morality that matters is the one that directs an individuals actions within the population.

Morality, immorality or amorality does not apply to an isolated individual does it? (On a desert island it doesn't matter if you run around naked, masturbate, spew obscenities, or depict the prophet Mohammed in a bear suit - the only consequence would come from your own mind). In other words, your morality does not come from your own mind, it comes from everyone else's. The morality that comes from your mind is what you would wish to impose on them.


Given my religious outlook, there are certain "moral" obligations that I should do whether people are around or not. Certainly some things are dependent on interactions with people, but a lot of stuff should or shouldn't be done no matter how many people are around.

taking your example of Mohammed. A Muslim would say that it's morally wrong to depict Mohammed at any point in any time. Doesn't matter whether people are around.

[JHC]

Given my religious outlook, there are certain "moral" obligations that I should do whether people are around or not. Certainly some things are dependent on interactions with people, but a lot of stuff should or shouldn't be done no matter how many people are around.

taking your example of Mohammed. A Muslim would say that it's morally wrong to depict Mohammed at any point in any time. Doesn't matter whether people are around.

Where did this Mohammedan get the idea?

[JHC]

Given my religious outlook, there are certain "moral" obligations that I should do whether people are around or not. Certainly some things are dependent on interactions with people, but a lot of stuff should or shouldn't be done no matter how many people are around.

taking your example of Mohammed. A Muslim would say that it's morally wrong to depict Mohammed at any point in any time. Doesn't matter whether people are around.

Along the same lines (exact same lines), can you name some morality that you impose upon yourself that does not involve another person and was not put into your head by another person?

[JHC]

It's tough isn't it?
I find the most interesting moral codes have to do with inanimate objects. Mixing cloth doesn't seem to have any relation at all to morality. Do you think that one were on a desert island, that they might, somehow, come up with that same feeling that it is just wrong to use coconut husks AND palm fronds to make a hat or loin cloth? (What?! So close to ones...privates?!) ;-)

[Non Sequitur]

It's tough isn't it?
I find the most interesting moral codes have to do with inanimate objects. Mixing cloth doesn't seem to have any relation at all to morality. Do you think that one were on a desert island, that they might, somehow, come up with that same feeling that it is just wrong to use coconut husks AND palm fronds to make a hat or loin cloth? (What?! So close to ones...privates?!) ;-)
Where did this Mohammedan get the idea?
Along the same lines (exact same lines), can you name some morality that you impose upon yourself that does not involve another person and was not put into your head by another person?

ah well, if that's the qualification than I retract my statement.

[JHC]

Why wouldn't it be the qualifications? The question was whether or not morality was a creation of the mind or an objective handed down from above. If you think about it, in isolation you would have no need to place restrictions on your own behavior: choices would equal morals and would never be arbitrary.

So, my stipulation about morality being a creation of the mind is that it is a creation that is meant to be implemented on others. It is, by derived definition, a code of behavior within a society. That means that when we create moral codes, we are creating them in our own interest and implementing them on others. Occasionally we compromise where we must. Isn't that what Jesus was all about? ;-)

[Non Sequitur]

Why wouldn't it be the qualifications? The question was whether or not morality was a creation of the mind or an objective handed down from above. If you think about it, in isolation you would have no need to place restrictions on your own behavior: choices would equal morals and would never be arbitrary.

Let me preface by saying morality discussions are not my specialty. My theological outlook makes the discussion a secondary concern.

But, I retract my previous statement because in rereading your posts I have changed my opinion because I don't actually agree with the way I worded my statements. If we are considering the example of the person on the desert island, while they may be isolated from other people they are not isolated from the relationship with the Divine. Therefore this isolated person may have a different moral code because (using a Christian example) the commandment to love your neighbor make no sense there are still certain commandments that apply due to a relationship with God. So, using my previous example, The Muslim does not depict Mohammed because it is a violation of the holiness of God and his message.

As I said, I am not very good at morality discussions so my previous posts were wrong in their outlook. Now that I think about it, I think we agree on certain points just not others.

So, my stipulation about morality being a creation of the mind is that it is a creation that is meant to be implemented on others. It is, by derived definition, a code of behavior within a society. That means that when we create moral codes, we are creating them in our own interest and implementing them on others. Occasionally we compromise where we must. Isn't that what Jesus was all about? ;-)

hmmm, well Jesus is the savior first and only a moral teacher after we have established that faith article. the Christian promise is not a superior morality, but a freedom from morality one cannot fulfill.

[JHC]

Let me preface by saying morality discussions are not my specialty. My theological outlook makes the discussion a secondary concern.

But, I retract my previous statement because in rereading your posts I have changed my opinion because I don't actually agree with the way I worded my statements. If we are considering the example of the person on the desert island, while they may be isolated from other people they are not isolated from the relationship with the Divine. Therefore this isolated person may have a different moral code because (using a Christian example) the commandment to love your neighbor make no sense there are still certain commandments that apply due to a relationship with God. So, using my previous example, The Muslim does not depict Mohammed because it is a violation of the holiness of God and his message.

As I said, I am not very good at morality discussions so my previous posts were wrong in their outlook. Now that I think about it, I think we agree on certain points just not others.



hmmm, well Jesus is the savior first and only a moral teacher after we have established that faith article. the Christian promise is not a superior morality, but a freedom from morality one cannot fulfill.
Yes, I think we do agree in some respects. Nothing unusual.

My comment about Jesus had to do with the Christian view that the surfeit archaic morality derived from the OT does not necessarily apply since Jesus came along. it is the justification used to include shellfish in the diet, wear cloth of different fibers, and not cover our heads (women) in church.

It is an example of the way morality is morphed to suit society and never an absolute.

[Non Sequitur]

Yes, I think we do agree in some respects. Nothing unusual.

My comment about Jesus had to do with the Christian view that the surfeit archaic morality derived from the OT does not necessarily apply since Jesus came along. it is the justification used to include shellfish in the diet, wear cloth of different fibers, and not cover our heads (women) in church.

It is an example of the way morality is morphed to suit society and never an absolute.

yeah, that's not quite what I would say, but I understand the point (this isn't the place for a discussion on the nature of the Law and Christian theology). God is eternal, morality systems aren't.

[JHC]

I just want to post because every time I look at this thread from the index it says: "Human brain source of...Non Sequiter"

[Mind's Eye]

BackOnTopic >
you shouldn't be so flippant in your reply vis-a-vis reward and punishment. You cannot arrive at an answer precisely because there are 6 billion +/- theoretically valid answers, which have been shaped by 6 billion sets of morals - the answer is an individual endeavor. Only when one stops to contemplate how others will judge his answer does that morality become influenced. It then ceases to be his morality.
Just making sure I am reading you right before I protest, are you saying that everyone's morality is equally valid? I would be highly uncomfortable with that idea applied to certain historical personages.
Yes, to each individual, their morality is valid. Once the issue of equality is raised, we are no longer talking about morality - we are now entering the realm of conformity.

[Mind's Eye]

Hi!.

Morality is imposed by the collective population. You may deem that your own morality is better or worse but that is irrelevant. The only morality that matters is the one that directs an individuals actions within the population.

Morality, immorality or amorality does not apply to an isolated individual does it? (On a desert island it doesn't matter if you run around naked, masturbate, spew obscenities, or depict the prophet Mohammed in a bear suit - the only consequence would come from your own mind). In other words, your morality does not come from your own mind, it comes from everyone else's. The morality that comes from your mind is what you would wish to impose on them.

Second, interpretations of this study are far too broad. The study reveals that if you fuck with a particular part of the brain that is used for a particular purpose, that specific function is inhibited. Of course. This is how lobotomies gained such aplomb after WWII. 18,000 people were lobotomized in the US from 1939 to 1951.
What the study really shows is that people that can not interpret the actions of others are less judgmental about that other's actions.

What if you were incapable of seeing the expressions on someone's face? Would you not also be inhibited in judging their intentions?

I'd like to see the same study done except that the people with the magnet on their head are asked to interpret an apparently altruistic act. Would they see the person offering a ride to a stranger as a threat or good Samaritan?

Multiple factors contribute to the way we behave but they all resolve back to the physiological accouterments with which we are born.
For instance: I have Crohn's disease. It has something to do with heredity and many genes are identified and implicated in the expression of the disease. However, many people have the same genetic alleles and do not have the disease. It is believed that stress plays another significant factor in the Crohn's phenotype.
Stress is a significant factor in many diseases. When I say stress, I am talking about the physiological/emotional reaction of the body to repeated stimuli. This includes psychological/emotional stress which induces hormone responses (that is why we cry, sweat, tremble in fear, get dry mouth, have increased heart rate, etc...). I am also talking about long term illness or repeated infections or physical injury.

Likewise, our moral development begins with our brains developed from the mesenchyme, developed from differentiation of the blastocyst cells, developed from the process of vertical DNA transfer from meiosis. :D
On top of which is layered the evolution of society/culture. And on top of that is the direct learned behavior.

Needless to say, an experiment that equates morality with a specific portion of human anatomy is facile.
And hello to you !

Even in isolation, an individual will develop principles on how he chooses to live his life. How can those not be called morals ?

If morality is imposed, then how can it truly be called one's morality ?
One's morals must be constructed through the exercise of free will.

Taking your isolated island scenario one step further - if this naked frolicking individual was to one day find visitors to his island, would he insist that the visitors remove their clothes and begin acting as he had been ? Or, would he suddenly develop " morals " similar to those he was confronted with ?
We could witness mimicry or stalemate.
The outcome largely depends upon which party has the stronger will. In civilized society, morals are typically imposed thru a " holier-than-thou "
,strength in numbers approach.

Stressors do cause a great deal of health problems. From what little I know of Crohn's, it sounds terrible.

Stress can be both external and internal. External sources can be internalized, however.

Getting back to morals. If a set of morals is imposed on an individual ( or group of individuals ), would not that being forced to live under a code of conduct not of your choosing cause internal stress ? And how would that manifest itself ?

[JHC]

And hello to you !

Even in isolation, an individual will develop principles on how he chooses to live his life. How can those not be called morals ?

If morality is imposed, then how can it truly be called one's morality ?
One's morals must be constructed through the exercise of free will.

Taking your isolated island scenario one step further - if this naked frolicking individual was to one day find visitors to his island, would he insist that the visitors remove their clothes and begin acting as he had been ? Or, would he suddenly develop " morals " similar to those he was confronted with ?
We could witness mimicry or stalemate.
The outcome largely depends upon which party has the stronger will. In civilized society, morals are typically imposed thru a " holier-than-thou "
,strength in numbers approach.

Stressors do cause a great deal of health problems. From what little I know of Crohn's, it sounds terrible.

Stress can be both external and internal. External sources can be internalized, however.

Getting back to morals. If a set of morals is imposed on an individual ( or group of individuals ), would not that being forced to live under a code of conduct not of your choosing cause internal stress ? And how would that manifest itself ?

I think you made a distinction in your first sentence that describes the subtle difference between how an individual lives alone and how they live in society. A principle is, as it implies, a base or primary instruction/motivation/foundation - the beginning of morality and also the beginning of immorality but without another being to judge, it is little more than habit.
For instance, I don't drink coffee because it's hard on my stomach. That is the principle or core of the issue. If I lived in Utah amongst a large Mormon population, I may be influenced by the religious dictate that says it is immoral to pollute the temple of God.

I have class but I'll be back.

[JHC]

And hello to you !

Even in isolation, an individual will develop principles on how he chooses to live his life. How can those not be called morals ?

If morality is imposed, then how can it truly be called one's morality ?
One's morals must be constructed through the exercise of free will.

Taking your isolated island scenario one step further - if this naked frolicking individual was to one day find visitors to his island, would he insist that the visitors remove their clothes and begin acting as he had been ? Or, would he suddenly develop " morals " similar to those he was confronted with ?
We could witness mimicry or stalemate.
The outcome largely depends upon which party has the stronger will. In civilized society, morals are typically imposed thru a " holier-than-thou "
,strength in numbers approach.

Stressors do cause a great deal of health problems. From what little I know of Crohn's, it sounds terrible.

Stress can be both external and internal. External sources can be internalized, however.

Getting back to morals. If a set of morals is imposed on an individual ( or group of individuals ), would not that being forced to live under a code of conduct not of your choosing cause internal stress ? And how would that manifest itself ?

One final down and five to go. Ugh.

I think morals are precisely what is developed when at least two people come together and negotiate whose principles and traditions to carry forward. There is a little manipulation going on and that's how they become "right" even when they may not be the best alternative.

Here's why I say what I say (I think I alluded to it earlier but I'll try to be clear): Lets say that while the guy is living on the island, he has a bad experience eating shelf fish of one kind or another. Perhaps he left it out too long.:shrug: When his neighbor arrives from some other island, there isn't quite enough food for the both of them except for the abundant shellfish.
Our guy insists that they do not eat the shellfish. The new guy has eaten shellfish just like this from his previous habitat and never got sick. He's hungry.
As the new guy is partaking of the shellfish, where he thought he had some privacy from his new neighbor, he gets busted.
Our boy is indignant. He was just trying to do the right thing for his new neighbor. AND, it's his island after all, he knows better. AND, the neighbor must be a fool if he eats the thing that made him sick! So, he devises a story to tell this poor feeble minded neighbor to save him from himself: "Wow, a voice just came down from the sky while I was off in the hills. It said it was god and for His sake, DON'T EAT THOSE FISH!, and there was a crack and boom and scared the piss right outta me!"
Et voila, la moralite' it nee'.

I hope you caught the allusion to OT and Hadith scripture. There are plenty of practical "morals" that have nothing to do with being a descent person. These are not merely principles, they are ... hmmm... spiced up with holiness.

This, I think is what makes morality different than habit or principles. And I don't think you would make that kind of stuff up for yourself.

"Wilsonnnnnnnn", "Wiiiiiilsonnnnn"

[evanescence]

The researcher based this study on a small sample, just eight people; however, the results are interesting. I've often wondered, though, how much of the hard wiring in our brain is actually hard wired at birth or has been altered by our experiences. I honestly don't know if the question of nature vs. nurture is a black or white question because there are too many variables that are still not resolved.

Scientists know, for example, that certain drugs can change the chemistry of the brain, can change how the brain and body systems process information. What other substances and/or outside stimuli can alter the brain? Hormones in the food we eat? Pollutants in the air? Stress? States of altered homeostatsis?

Cognitive behaviorists have been trying to answer the question of nature vs. nurture for a long time. Are we truly a blank slate? A noble savage? Ghosts in the machine? This study is perhaps another small piece of the puzzle, but with the sample so small, more research is needed.

It seems to be a combination of nature and nurture that is so intertwined that it cannot be examined as separate.

[Michael]

It seems to be a combination of nature and nurture that is so intertwined that it cannot be examined as separate.

That's generally the approach I take for all of the nature/nurture questions. Where the genes or body chemistry stops/starts and human conscious choices take over is a fat blurry line and I think it always will be.