So, several days ago I listened to this podcast about morality. It talks about some current research investigating where moral decisions come from. I posted this link on Tuesday, but I want to try and sum up what it's about for those of you who don't have the time to listen to the broadcast. I apologize in advance for the morbid scenario.
Scenario 1: You're standing near two railroad tracks that lie side-by-side. Down the track there are six workers inspecting the tracks for damages. Five of the workers are on the left track and one worker is on the right track. All of a sudden, you see a train come around the bend and head straight for the workers on the left track. Unfortunately, the workers have giant headphones on and are not faced toward the train. They will be struck and killed. But...there is a giant handle next to you. If you pull the handle, it will divert the train to the right track and only one worker will die. You're in the moment...it's a split-second decision. What do you do?
Scenario 2: Again, there are five workers on a track, but this time all workers are on the same track. This time you are standing on a footbridge above the tracks with another very large person. Here comes the train. The workers can't see or hear it and they will be killed. However, you realize that if you give the stranger beside you a subtle nudge, you can force him off of the footbridge, onto the tracks, and stop the train. For one person's life, you have just saved six. What do you do?
So, in the podcast they present each of these scenarios to people on the street in New York to see what they say. In the first scenario, ninety percent of respondents said they would pull the lever and sacrifice one worker's life to save the six. However, ninety percent of respondents also said they would NOT push the man from the bridge to have the same effect. When you think about it, this is an interesting concept. Each action has the same result: one life lost and five lives saved. But what is it about Scenario 2 that keeps us from pushing the man off the bridge? Is this a decision that we make based on previous life experiences and socialization or is there some sort of hard-wiring in the brain that sets us up? Believe it or not, there are scientists out there trying to come up with a rational answer to this question.
In the podcast they interview a scientist from Princeton named Josh Green that presents these scenarios to his subjects. However, Josh has his subjects connected to a brain scanner that takes thousands of pictures of the brain while they think through the scenarios. At the instant that a subject says "Yes, I would pull the lever" the brain images all show a distinct yellow spot in the frontal cortex. At the moment that someone says "No, I would not push the man" the brain images all display another set of distinct yellow sections in a different location on the brain. So, what this means is that these two sections of the brain are at war over who will be heard. One is the voice of reason and logic...the other is the voice of empathy and good will.
So, how does this all tie into our readings? Strike and Soltis use Chapter 6 (Professionalism) to speak about their overall idea of what morality is. For example, they write:
"Moral decisions regarding choice and action require moral sensitivity, rationality, and the development of moral theory for which the primary evidence is our moral intuitions. Moral intuitions, our sense of what is right and wrong, are the basic data for moral reasoning and the construction of moral theory."
Based on the studies of neuroscientists like Josh Green, is it conceivable that we might have a better way of making moral decisions in the future? Will future technologies be able to help us to better analyze our thought processes? How might this effect the way we make moral decisions? After all, Strike and Soltis refer to moral intuitions as "data".
If you're interested in the brain, check out Jonah Lehrer's blog. Cut and paste this into your browser:
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex
No comments:
Post a Comment