Glen Carrigan looks at the science of morality
Science, increasingly, is answering questions which before only philosophers could attempt
Why doesn’t Microsoft Word recognise the word ‘Neuropsychology?’ Maybe because it’s a rather new field, although people have been musing on the workings of the physical brain for a very long time indeed – don’t worry though, we’re not trepanning people anymore!
My interest is the moral brain, how humans – and other animals to some degree – draw the distinction between right and wrong to organise society. Some argue that moral standards are axiomatic and that moral compasses come from god. There actually seems to be some truth to this, in that some absolutist standards like Thou Shalt Not Kill or the Golden Rule seem to be very intuitive – as is the notion that you’re somehow a social pariah if you play World of Warcraft. A paper by Baumard and Boyer called “Explaining Moral Religions” shows just how universal this is.
Is the Golden Rule any good though? Maybe, but you’re making your own narrow individual experience the basis for how you treat others. Wouldn’t it be better to ask them how they’d like to be treated? This should indeed be the case for issues such as assisted dying, where holding to Thou Shalt Not Kill diminishes the dignity and autonomy of a feeling, reflecting being. To hold dogmatic moral views also only works if you believe in god and that at least in some religions, you’re good to escape punishment in the hereafter, rather than for the sake of the here and now.
Far from being divine in origin, there seems to be a wealth of evidence showing us that being an individual yet social animal, with a big (relative to body size) and healthy brain, necessitates certain behaviours for us to flourish in a group. This then, gives rise to our need to discuss and reflect upon what it means to be a moral agent. You can see similar intuitive behavioural patterns to our own in other animals that operate in social groups. A wonderful example is the reciprocal behaviour of vampire bats, who seem to understand that a good deed (donating a regurgitated blood meal – stomach churning I know) deserves repayment. There is much converging evidence in evolutionary psychology that points to animals being the origin of their own ‘moral’ codes. But there are driving forces behind being a good egg other than reciprocity.
Throughout history philosophers have struggled with what constitutes the virtuous act. We notice that certain behaviours are predictable and wrong such as rape and rightly condemn people for it. We also need to accept that we make choices – if we have free will – and should be responsible for them. The fact that certain prohibitions are intuitive might suggest an in-built moral acquisition and refinement device (MARD) which is nurtured by social experience, emotion and reflection, rather than an omnipotent law giver. Perhaps we are actually responsible for the holy books that seek to have us toe the moral line – although we were managing to beforehand – in any event we seem to be the only species we know of that spends a great deal of time writing books telling ourselves to be good, that we’re special, and that we should be humble about it!
Neuropsychology can perhaps tell us a bit about this MARD and how we think, rather than what we should think here: We establish the social norms after all and what acts constitute deviance. The archetypal Psychopath seems to be deviant to many of us and this is why I study them. The fact is that we all have psychopathic traits along a spectrum; it’s just that some people have more pronounced, what the majority consider to be, morally deviant tendencies. Neuropsychology shows us that Psychopaths seem to have diminished empathic concern, as well as, fail to notice the importance of intention in a harmful act. Since it’s us that establish that intention to cause harm is worse than an accident (the difference between murder and manslaughter) we view psychopaths as morally deviant in society – perhaps their MARD is broken?
People often panic here and think that if we can predict someone will think and perhaps behave murderously then the notion of choice in society falls apart. It might, if you want Neuroscience to strip us of our humanity. In my view, although we could see why such people might be like this, that doesn’t mean they walk away scot free. What matters is that we discuss our options reflectively and organise society around us as moral beings that makes choices, with a sense of responsibility, and who can be punished for transgressions, rather than allowing my brain made me do it as an alibi in all cases where mental instability is an issue. It’s also worth pointing out that most psychopaths actually don’t run around murdering people like Heath Ledger in Batman!
Glen Carrigan is a neuropsychology researcher at the University of Central Lancashire, as well as ex-military, a qualified fitness instructor, communications specialist, youth mentor, humanist, science presenter and model who advocates social and political activism in equality and education.
I appreciated the essay. I will say that you seemed to skip jauntily by a rather large obstacle with a mere, “if we have free will”. I do not wish to imply that this somehow negates all your points. I would like to suggest we will need to circle back to that at some point. Cheers.
I agree that free will is an issue in this post, but it need not be. It didn’t need to be included at all.
Responsibility can be appreciated from a causal perspective. Lots of influences align to cause an ‘agent’ to do something, or to want to do something, but at the time of action or intent the most recent and localised causal effects come from the brain.
The breaks on a car fail while travelling downhill and it causes some harm. First things first: the car is the most local focus of cause. Take it off the road. Then, look for causes of the failed breaks: mechanic didn’t do his job right; owner didn’t have it serviced; or some hard object broke a break pipe without anyone realising; … Can it be fixed?
A man kills, and is held immediately responsible and taken off the streets. Something about his brain states were the most immediate focus of the killing. Then, look for causes: abuse as a child; persecution as a teen; exposed to drugs and violence; brain tumour; …
The notion of responsibility does not require free will.
You seem to be viewing human being as relatively developed human being.
However, all human beings go through phases in life, beginning with infancy, where we all learn certain lessons as to how to attract the attention of our parents in a positive way if we need something from them.
As we grow, we learn that in any social unit, there needs to be a certain amount of “give and take” for those relationships to work, which – of course – we also find applies to the much wider relationship we have with society in general.
I do not believe we are born with certain attitudes or values; rather, we develop them as we find out which work best for us.
One strong lesson we all learn is the golden rule, though most of us do not know it by that name.
Ultimately, we all want to live in a society where we can all live and let live.
The alternative – if we managed to survive that long – would be a Hobbesian nightmare, where life would be solitary, nasty, poor, brutish – and short.
With regard to your interest in psychopaths, I believe this can be traced back to physiological and/or psychological factors when people are growing up.
Maltreatment by adults can mentally scar the minds of growing people – i.e. child abuse experiences – and/or there may be some problem with the physical composition of some people’s brains and neural network development.
It is arguable these physical and mental “scars” cause a lack of empathy and the development of the psychopathic personality.
I view morality as representing those values we all share largely in common. They are values that the vast majority share in any socity, as opposed to ethical values, which I believe are developed “from above” in any society.
Moral values are values which work relatively well for us and all others in society.
We learn and know that if everyone steals from everyone else there can be no security for anyone. Therefore, we all have a tacit agreement to treat one another honestly. Those who deviate from these folkway understandings end up becoming shunned and treated as social pariahs.
Of course, some people – because of brain damage and/or chemical imbalances – may be literally incapable of understanding and applying societally accepted values, which can be problematic for them and everyone else on occasions.
Well written but not particularly new ideas. Rather than continuing to attempt integration Maybe we need to examine the differences in “types”. Applying contemporary Western social standards across the board is also using a single paradigm in this case that of the dominant culture. Maybe we could start to look at different people in terms of different species? This is not being disrespectful if any thing we maybe doing ourselves a disservice to continue looking at everyone as being the same. Also Let’s leave upbringing out of it and look at the biological markers and how they differ form the Psychopath to the ordinary. maybe we need to embrace difference even at this level by starting to look at humans being divided into species within the group. Maybe this would help us understand differing needs and behaviours from a more informed perspective .
Like the other commenters I found that disappointingly lightweight. Sure our morality has been acquired by evolution as a species and our development and learning as individuals. Not sure giving a name to the rather mechanistic MARD “device” metaphor really helps – given as others have also pointed out, there are plenty of other “hard problems” around the seat of consciousness, free-will and more.
Good piece of science writing, very accessible. Liked how you eluded to free will in the final paragraph by saying organising society in the way we do is what matters rather than saying we perhaps have no free will (the brain makes us do it) and therefore we’re not responsible.
Captures nicely my views on the subject, there doesn’t seem to be much out there that suggests moral choices and free will isn’t a product of neurology and society as you suggest. Would enjoy reading more.
There is no such thing as a moral brain – only a brain.
It is another one of the physical organs we have – it has no “values” of its own.
The concept of morality is defined by inputs from others we co-exist with.
It therefore relies upon inter-personal stimuli and not internal processes.
Where the question of free will arises is if we ask ourselves just how free are we?
Do our appetites – physical and psychological – “make” us act in certain ways?
Do external circumstances circumscribe our courses and freedoms of action?
A possible answer is to ask just how predictable is our and others’ behaviours?
The more you look at these questions, the less relevant become brain processes, unless the physical structure of the brain is damaged, which is definitely one of the explanations for psychotic and sociopathic behaviours. No free will there!
Really enjoyed reading that, more academics need to become adept at using humour whilst writing. I particularly liked the twist on the golden rule.
A lot of commenters have missed the point of simple and accessible writing, to get novices interested in a subject. “Moral Brain” is clearly a metaphor meant to get people thinking for example, and to assume the writer hasn’t thought about many of the deeper questions is just odd – unless you just want to list how much you know about a subject in a comment of course.
I think previous comments about this article being ‘lightweight’ fail to appreciate how fascinating this entire subject is to everyday people. Who among us doesn’t question, on a daily basis, what makes our fellow humans tick and how they make the decisions they make? Currently, here in the U.S. there is a trial going on establishing the guilt of one of the “Boston Bombers”. He is not a suspect…he is guilty. Our justice system is in the process of figuring out what to do with somebody who kills others indiscriminately and shows no remorse verbally or by outward appearance. What ‘moral compass’ is in place? This gets to the heart of jihadism, in my way of thinking. How can a behavior, immoral in any other instance, suddenly become moral when it is done for religious reasons? Dogmatic religious views can lead to extreme criminal behavior. Getting to the heart of this has merit and the discussion is just getting started!
Forgive me if I am wrong but you seem to claim that neuropsychology is able to answer ethical questions where philosophy has thus far failed. However at best all you have appeared to have shown is that neuropsychology can describe the pyscho-biological structures of moral and non-moral agents.
But this is a far cry away from showing that science can determine those values. Your example with the psychopath already presupposes that being non-empathetic is in some way wrong but you have not shown that is wrong, but instead what this wrongness looks like neurologically.