a trolley...MRI...and morality...and I have my own theory...

A young man named Joshua Green is an Associate Professor at Harvard University. Don't let that bother you.....he is quite bright...and he asks good questions...so forgive the Harvard thing.

Now...here is what the young lad says:

I study moral decision-making using behavioral methods coupled with neuroimaging (fMRI). My research focuses on the interplay between emotional and "cognitive" processes in moral judgment. Sounds very important to me...however, he does this with an interesting problem...The Trolley problem.

Rationalist philosophers such as Plato and Immanuel Kant conceived of mature moral judgment as a rational enterprise, as a matter of appreciating abstract reasons that in themselves provide direction and motivation. In contrast to Plato and Kant, "sentimentalist" philosophers such as David Hume and Adam Smith argued that emotions are the primary basis for moral judgment. In more recent years, the rationalist banner has been carried by developmental psychologists such as Lawrence Kohlberg. Likewise, some contemporary researchers, most notably Jonathan Haidt, have emphasized the importance of emotion in moral judgment. My research program aims at a synthesis of these two perspectives. In my experiments I present people with moral dilemmas that, if I'm right, elicit a complex combination of reasoned and emotional responses.

What you ask? Well the great moral dilemma...

Moral Dilemmas and the "Trolley Problem" The moral dilemmas that I use in my experiments are often adapted from dilemmas devised by philosophers to probe our moral intuitions. The most famous example of these is the "Trolley Problem," which goes like this: A runaway trolley is hurtling down the tracks toward five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. You can save these five people by diverting the trolley onto a different set of tracks, one that has only one person on it, but if you do this that person will be killed. Is it morally permissible to turn the trolley and thus prevent five deaths at the cost of one? Most people say yes. Now consider a slightly different dilemma. Once again, the trolley is headed for five people. You are on a footbridge over the tracks next to a large man. The only way to save the five people is to push this man off the bridge and into the path of the trolley. Is that morally permissible? Most people say no.

These two cases create a puzzle for moral philosophers: What makes it okay to sacrifice one person for the sake of five others in the first case but not in the second case? But there is also a psychological puzzle here: How does everyone know (or "know") that it's okay to turn the trolley but not okay to push the man off the bridge? My collaborators and I have collected brain imaging data suggesting that emotional responses are an important part of the answer. (Click here to download the paper.)

In our more recent work we have collected brain imaging data suggesting that "cognitive" factors are important as well and that emotional and "cognitive" processes compete for control of behavior. (Click here to download the paper.) For example, consider the following moral dilemma: It’s war time, and you are hiding in a basement with several other people. The enemy soldiers are outside. Your baby starts to cry loudly, and if nothing is done the soldiers will find you and kill you, your baby, and everyone else in the basement. The only way to prevent this from happening is to cover your baby’s mouth, but if you do this the baby will smother to death. Is it morally permissible to do this? According to our theory, this dilemma is difficult and uncomfortable because it creates a conflict between a strong emotional response (“Don’t kill the baby!”) and a strong "cognitive" response that points in the opposite direction ("But if you don’t kill the baby, you gain nothing and have much to lose.") Two findings from our most recent neuroimaging study support this interpretation. First, we have found that in response to difficult moral dilemmas such as this a brain region associated with response conflict (the anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC) exhibits increased activity, suggesting that the difficulty associated with dilemmas such as this results from response conflict and not just a need for extended computation. Second, we have found that in response to dilemmas such as this brain regions associated with cognitive control (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, or DLPFC, and inferior parietal cortex) exhibit greater activity when people favor the promotion of the best overall consequences. In other words, when people say, "Yes, it’s okay to smother the baby," they exhibit increased activity in parts of the brain associated with high-level cognitive function.

My take:

Well, here is where I dabble a bit, into my own views.. You see, I think that God...gave us hard wiring for certain things...one being a social...moral...cognitive, synaptic code...for the answer to the first Trolley Dilemma...for the good of the community...He also gave us another code...for the second dilemma...We simply are hard wired. However, the second dilemma is not the same as the first....because it involves our choice...to personally harm a person...with our own hands...in otherwords...we play God...at that moment, and we really don't like that position...thus the confusion...although the math is the same...one sacrificed for the many...our evolutionary code provides us with the a pretty easy answer...but when push comes to shove...we can't. Put a mechanical means in our way...and luck is still involved...and it really is not by our hand..it is the "switch" that does him in. But...push an innocent to save others? Our wiring for this is also coded...do not harm an innocent...that takes over...and the others...become secondary...thus the dilemma... God...does not play dice...

So...I asked one of the women at work...what would you do? She is a bible...study gal...and said..."If I knew one of the people on the tracks...it would make a difference." She added, "I am going to ask my husband tonight."

This got everyone else involved in the question...and here is the question for all of us..."If you were the fat man to be thrown off the bridge...would you jump to save the others?...and make the man's dilemma go away."

In any case...it is worth discussion...and thought...and more discussion...and then...think about this little dilemma...it happens quite often...just not with trolleys...but it does.



OH...and it Green's work is not enough...

At Rutgers, an anthropologist is investigating the neural circuitry of romantic love by putting besotted volunteers in a brain scanner and asking them to stare at a photograph of their beloved. At Harvard, a business professor is comparing brain responses to different advertising images, while an English professor is preparing to look at what happens in a reader's brain when she encounters a metaphor in Proust. At Rice University in Houston, a music professor is planning to study the cognitive basis for sight-reading. Even perceptions of racial difference have been examined in an M.R.I. machine.


We want to understand our biology...but one thing is certain...

The majority of individuals respond ''yes'' to the first scenario and ''no'' to the second. Now...how about the guy sacrificed in the first dilemma...how do you think he answered the question...same way we all do...that is more interesting to me...

OH...and when they find the receptors and regions for love...they have of course...they need to dig around in there a bit...and see if romantic love...is next to our love of chocolate receptors....just wondering...because our store is full of chocolate for some holiday in February...which by the way...I don't celebrate...

Love,
The Lass