Neuroscientists find basis for morality in brain biology
posted at 1:02 pm on May 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m reminded of Rick Warren’s memorable “defense” of religion in his Newsweek debate with Sam Harris: “If death is the end, shoot, I’m not going to waste another minute being altruistic.” Spoken like a true humanitarian, Rick.
Looks like he’s wrong, and a good thing too.
“You gotta see this!” Jorge Moll had written. Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health, had been scanning the brains of volunteers as they were asked to think about a scenario involving either donating a sum of money to charity or keeping it for themselves…
The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable…
What the new research is showing is that morality has biological roots — such as the reward center in the brain that lit up in Grafman’s experiment — that have been around for a very long time.
The more researchers learn, the more it appears that the foundation of morality is empathy. Being able to recognize — even experience vicariously — what another creature is going through was an important leap in the evolution of social behavior. And it is only a short step from this awareness to many human notions of right and wrong, says Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago…
Marc Hauser, another Harvard researcher, has used cleverly designed psychological experiments to study morality. He said his research has found that people all over the world process moral questions in the same way, suggesting that moral thinking is intrinsic to the human brain, rather than a product of culture. It may be useful to think about morality much like language, in that its basic features are hard-wired, Hauser said. Different cultures and religions build on that framework in much the way children in different cultures learn different languages using the same neural machinery.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
No it isn’t a “side issue.” It is a positive assertion that you have provided no evidence for. By my “assuming” the sun is going to rise tomorrow because it did every previous day of my life, is that holding back science? Or making a logical inference based on previous findings? Do you see the connection to the dino tissue yet?
The question, “why can’t the facts just speak for themselves without storytelling?” is not in dispute, therefore a straw man. The problem is your interpretation of facts.
You’ve gone from saying that studies shouldn’t have assumptions to now simply saying evolution shouldn’t be mentioned in an article. Well, I tell the professor not to say the “e-word” because Rightwinged doesn’t like it.
bert169 on May 29, 2007 at 12:18 AM
I haven’t gone from any one thing to another (lying again bert), I’ve made the same point all along, but in order to get you to respond to a simple question that I’ve begged you to ask, I’ve had to explain it from different angles. I’m talking about mentioning evolution where it doesn’t belong. As I said, if microevolution is seen in a study, by all means talk all about it. But assuming evolution and mentioning it as if what you’re saying about it is somehow scientific is dishonest and not good science reporting, and not just allowing the facts to speak for themselves, it’s storytelling.
And give me a break with the “straw man”, don’t try to hit me with that just because I’ve busted you dozens of times building straw men throughout.
And if this question about whether the facts should speak for themselves was not in dispute, why have I asked it so many times, pointing out each time that I’ve already asked it, pointing it out again, and again, and again, and begged you for a simple answer on it… why, unless you’re either retarded, or insane, or just afraid to answer for any number of reasons, did it take you until now to respond. If you truly believed what you said, about it being a given that the facts should speak for themselves, why didn’t you just say exactly that one of the first dozen or so times I asked… why did it take easily 20 times? And why are you saying it’s not in dispute, and acting as if you agree that the facts should speak for themselves and leave the storytelling out of it, yet still maintaining the position that evolution should be inserted in to articles, etc. even when it played no role in a finding or study, or the assumption about how something evolved shattered without any evidence for actual evolution occuring?
As for the sun rising comparing to scientists actively ignoring something right in front of their eyes because evolutionary assumptions clouded their thinking? I haven’t seen a bigger case of apples and oranges. I would say I’m stunned that you even attempted that, but your insanity and dishonesty is so vast that it would be tough to shock me at this point.
RightWinged on May 29, 2007 at 12:31 AM
That is so trivial: Evolution shouldn’t have been mentioned in the article is what you’re saying. The professor is probably giving a sneak peak at where further studies are going to take them.
Wow! You have evidence for such an assertion, don’t you? If they did “actively ignore” something, what was their motive? Why didn’t they just keep “ignoring something right in from of their eyes” rather than make the finding known?
And please don’t answer by calling me retarded, insane, liberal, etc… Those are ad-hominems. Remeber Logic?
bert169 on May 29, 2007 at 12:49 AM
I’m done.
Nightie night.
bert169 on May 29, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Those are ad hominems, only brought out because I’m left to conclude nothing else. I’m honestly asking if you are those things I’ve said, because you’re such a strange person. You completely ignore questions over and over, you respond as if you haven’t read the comments you’re responding to, and you divert, and you come off as insane. It’s not ad hominem, like I say it and run because I can’t argue. I conclude it after repeatedly making arguments that you can’t comprehend, even after I break it down as if for a child, and watching your strange ways.
As for the the soft tissue issue… Evidence for the assertion? How about them admitting that they weren’t looking for the soft tissue, because their evolutionary assumptions prevented them from considering a possibility. Again, holding back science. YOU again have the reading comprehension problem, or you’re spinning this off to get away from the issue (which you’ve masterfully done again). I’m not saying they “knew” it was there, and pretended it was not. If you’d followed my comments on this t-rex thing at all you’d know that. Now you’re acting as if my last comment was a conspiracy theory, like I’m claiming they knew the soft tissue was their and hid the finding for some motive. NOTHING I SAID IMPLIES THAT, THIS IS YET ANOTHER OF YOUR STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS, OR YOUR LACK OF ABILITY TO COMPREHEND WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING. Hear me now? Get it now? It’s that they were actively ignoring something that could have been discovered much earlier. They announced the discovery when it came out because it was a big deal, and I never implied they didn’t. And you’re clearly unfamiliar with how it happened. They cracked a massive bone deliberately to transport it. It was going to be impossible to move unless it was in two pieces. Only upon doing this did they mistakenly stumble upon something that their evolutionary assumptions had prevented them from even considering… they subsequently concluded that this might be more common, but that all these years their assumptions prevented them from even considering it. This is what I mean when I say they “actively ignored” something because of their assumptions. The finding is a HUGE deal, and anyone would have loved to be the one to discover it, but because they’re all going on some basic assumptions, but they all deliberately chose to not look for something they would have otherwise rushed to.
As for you calling my point about evolution language being inserted where it doesn’t belong… If that were the case, you’d have simply said that in the beginning. Instead of spending your entire day lying and building straw man arguments, and playing dumb, and generally acting like you’re out of your mind as you continue to comment and ignore simple questions that are repeated over and over, and with each time, noting that you refuse to answer, and coming off like you aren’t even reading what you’re claiming to be responding to. And now you’re talking about professors? That’s an issue not unrelated, but all the while this has been about articles and write-ups on studies. But you knew that, I think you’re just satisfied that you’ve dragged this thread down and off in to an area that gets away from revealing how ridiculous you’ve been all day, and pretending you never knew what this was about and that you are anti-honest science and have no problem with evolution storytelling, even when and especially when it doesn’t belong.
RightWinged on May 29, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Not much of a loss, you never started… unless you consider lying, building straw men, and acting like a lunatic starting.
RightWinged on May 29, 2007 at 1:22 AM
If you had a million monkeys hammering on a million keyboards for a million years…
…you’d probably end up with the Koran.
profitsbeard on May 29, 2007 at 1:49 AM
RW,
I had a nice long post nearly set to go, then I realized the absolute futility of hitting “submit”. For whatever reason, you think science is the same as religion. I can’t do anything to dissuade you from this stance.
When you ask “why do they keep changing their theories when new evidence comes out”, I know that anything I say has become pointless. You are, like it or not, teaching the controversey.
Krydor on May 29, 2007 at 2:21 AM
Well Krydor, I gave you too much credit. I thought you were smarter or at least a little more honest than these other clowns.. but clearly you’re not, you just a liar like the rest.
It’s not just a straw man for you to say that I ask:
No, that’s just an absolute LIE, krydor.
And no, I don’t think science is religion. The problem with your side is that evolution and science are interchangeable terms. I have no problem with science, I just prefer that it be honest. If you have a problem with my argument here, then you have a problem with honest science. I’ve simply asked what is wrong with reporting the facts and letting them speak for themselves. For probably the 50th time now, when a study shows either nothing about the origins of an animal, it’s traits or abilities, evolution has no place in the conclusion of the study or in articles or write-ups on said study. When studies are done that simply disprove assumptions that were created entirely based on evolutionary assumptions and timelines, it is not only unscientific, it is dishonest to say that the new evidence suggests something evolved differently. No, the evidence suggests what it suggests, and that’s simply that something COULDN’T have evolved the way previously believed. If the evidence for evolution is so strong, it can speak for itself, but it’s dishonest and not science to take evidence against evolutionary assumption and submit it as evidence for evolution by other means. It simply doesn’t and if one suggests it does, they are lying, plain and simple, no wiggle room.
Say I had a maid who came over every week one time, when I’m not home. If I find a spider the evening after I assumed she came over, because it was her normal day, I might assume that it came in on her somehow. When I go to drop off her check that weekend and she apologizes for not being able to make it that week, I’d suddenly realize that it couldn’t have come in with her. I would be lying if I insisted that this is evidence that it came in on someone else, and it would be stupid for me to assume that it “came in” at all. For all I know it already leaved in the corner in some closet and I just never knew it until the day I saw it, and that it came in a long time ago, through the walls. So my assumption that it was brought in was wrong, but simply based on the assumed time line and origin for the spider, not on evidence, but because I chose to only accept one option for its origins and for when it arrived, I insisted that it came in on someone. When I learned that it didn’t come in with the made, it was foolish and dishonest of me to conclude that it came in on someone the day my maid was there.
Granted that’s a rough example, but it suits the purpose. If you have no problem with someone using no related origins evidence or evidence that simply contradicts assumed evolution stories, as evidence for evolution. Then that’s your problem, but it ain’t science. So it is YOU who have a problem with science here, not me. I’ve said repeatedly that microevolution, as we all know, is not in question. So when it is seen, by all means make it the center of a study. But don’t show me evidence that disproves assumed methods of evolution, and tell me it’s evidence for a different type of evolution!!!
Anyway, back to your real problem here. You’re a liar. I never asked why they keep changing their theories. I know why. First of all, I don’t care if you have an idea of how something might have come to be if you acknowledge that it’s a guess, and you’ll let the evidence speak for itself. But when you create such a massive general theory which we aren’t allowed to question, then you’ve got religion. As has been stated numerous times, you can’t falsify evolution when no matter how much contradictory evidence they face, they simply adjust the theory (not because there is proof that new evidence fits the theory, but because the old assumptions no longer work in light of new evidence). I know, you’ll say that this is how science works, they go on the best information available and adjust when discoveries are made. And that’s all fine and good, but when you have a religiously held belief encompassing all that is held up and not allowed to be questioned, it stops being science for reasons I explained above.
In my spider story above, if you pretend my life is evolution, you would be okay with saying that because the spider couldn’t have come in with my maid, that it definitely came in with someone else. Of course that wouldn’t be accurate, but you would call this assumption science. The assumption, that comes only based on the assumption the spider came in on a person at all. There wasn’t evidence to suggest that the spider came in on a person in the first place, but in that part of my life, my time line I invented forced the assumption that it did come in on a person. Again, no evidence because it was living in the corner in the closet forever, but my assumption said it came in on someone, and it was obviously the maid at the time. When the maid said she wasn’t there, I knew (even though I had no evidence and was wrong, but still going on the initial assumption) that it came in one someone else. Evolution in this scenario is RightWinged’s life. The existence of a spider in my house a species. It’s origins, actually the walls and holes in them long ago. The assumption – that it came in on the made on a specific day that week. The basis for the assumption – the larger assumption that there was no other explanation than that it came in on a person, and she was the only one I knew who came in that week. One more time, the fact that it didn’t come in on the maid that week WAS NOT evidence that it came in on someone else that week. It was ONLY EVIDENCE that it didn’t come in on the maid, and that is all I should have said about it, instead of insisting that it was evidence it came in on another person, which was stupid and dishonest.
But by all means Krydor, keep up your lies and straw man arguments, you’re great at it. I guess next time I’ll be sure to expect you to put words in my mouth, simply because you can’t argue the actual points I’m making. This thread has been extremely revealing when it comes to you, bert, and JayHaw. They were pretty bad, but you putting in a quotes a question I never even came close to asking is disgraceful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for having done it. You may not want to believe it, but I believe you act this way because evolution IS your religion. You are offended that someone doesn’t believe it and it makes you so angry it drives you to strange levels of dishonesty and you are so blinded by your faith that you, usually a sane person, don’t even realize what you’re doing. You may not want to accept that and maybe it’s not correct and you were just drunk or otherwise not of a sound mind, but I suggest taking a look at your tactics and stepping back and thinking about what you did there. I’m really just at a loss for how you could honestly think that flat out LYING about what I’ve said, in order to call arguing with it pointless. Wow.
And to wrap it up, I’m not “teaching the controversy”. I’m not offended by the implication, you’re just simply wrong (or lying again), and maybe just confused. Teaching the controversy is about getting the fact that there is a debate taught in science class, instead of just evolution ONLY as it is today. It’s something “creationists” generally push for, at worst. While evolutionists flip out that creationists are trying to get Sunday School in the science classroom, most just want criticism of evolution taught and that’s it. Sure there are some fringe that want the Bible, but they are an insignificant minority. But this is all unrelated, and I only mention it because that’s what “teaching the controversy” is about. It’s about letting students know that not everyone buys evolution. I couldn’t care less whether you or anyone else agrees with the policy, because I’m not sure what I think of it NOR HAVE I EVER ADVOCATED IT OR BROUGHT IT UP OR PREACHED ANY FORM OF IT HERE!!! I’m not talking about teaching (though what I’m talking about could apply to the classroom too), I’m simply talking about not taking a lack of evidence or evidence contradictory to previous evolutionary assumptions, and passing it off as evidence “different” evolution. Again, I wish there was just honesty in science… you clearly don’t care, because the dishonesty goes to the benefit of your religion, so it’s all good, right? You’re like the scientists who wrote this year that it was okay that Darwin’s “Tree of Life” was totally bogus, because it was a “ladder” to getting folks to believe in evolution. This is very similar to a pastor who might try gimmicks to increase his congregation size. Maybe he tries to be hipper to bring in younger groups, spicing up the music with a band instead of just the choir, and maybe not wearing a tie, etc. He isn’t focusing on the peoples’ relationship with God, he’s just interested in getting them there.
(Psst Krydor, here’s the part where you come in and lie again, make up some fake quotes that I never said, accuse me of saying some other things I never said, and then throw a few diversions in there for good measure)
RightWinged on May 29, 2007 at 3:30 AM
Why is evolution mentioned at all when origins weren’t explored, and worse why is it that in cases where all that was found was that the previous assumption was wrong, is a new evolutionary assumption submitted?
Yeah, so, then there’s that, for starters. Kind of makes me ok with the lack of an edit feature. I don’t take well to being called a liar, RightWinged. Funny how that works. That breaks down to “why isn’t evolution dogmatic and why do they keep changing it”? Because it is science, and science isn’t religion.
What am I supposed to do with that rambling tirade? Go through each paragraph one by one and pick out the strange notions and fallacies? Is it worth my time?
Is this what you think is a logical argument? This is why, you controversey teacher, these discussions are pointless. Because now, apparently, before we can continue it seems I must instruct you on how to have a logical argument. Generally, the Godless universities and Satanic tech schools teach logic and critical thought. Guess what? I’m not going to explain the incredible fallacy in the above. That you wrote it and figured it must be airtight speaks volumes about you.
Then, you do it again!
You really, honestly, and truly have no idea what you are talking about. So, what does the evidence suggest to you? In the original article, it suggests to me that empathy is a chemical response. Then, one might wonder how that same reaction is apparently universal, regardless of culture. Then, here comes NATURAL SELECTION to explain it. You, on the other hand, don’t think about things you don’t think about.
So, science is a religion again or evolution is not a science, but a religion. Oh, I get so confused. The statement above is proof positive you know nothing, and I repeat for effect, nothing about the scientific method.
Now, all of a sudden, I am required to spend time teaching elementary logic and the scientific method. Seriously, what’s the point of continuing? I don’t see one.
Krydor on May 29, 2007 at 11:48 AM
It seems to me that this research is just verifying what that “ancient tribe of sheepherders” said about 2,000 years ago.
Here the Bible is saying we all have a basic sense of right and wrong, it’s called a “conscience” and when we do good our conscience defends our actions, and when we do bad, our conscience accuses our actions. Maybe these sheepherders knew what they were talking about after all… ?
Maxx on May 29, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Keep on lying Krydor, you may not take kindly to being called a liar… but perhaps you shouldn’t lie then. Nothing you’ve just said refutes anything I said in any way. One of your main problems is that you’re acting as if I’m specifically talking about this article, I’m speaking very generally, and that couldn’t have been more clear. I could go on about this specific article and assumed evolution’s obnoxious role, but why waste my time with a liar like you? You can’t understand the difference between honest science and lying and unscientific reporting. You can’t understand the difference between science and classroom science teaching. You really just don’t comprehend a whole hell of a lot, or, like the others, you’re playing dumb so that you don’t have to answer yes or no whether you’d like the facts to speak for themselves without all the storytelling.
I repeat:
RightWinged on May 29, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Krydor:
“In the original article, it suggests to me that empathy is a chemical response. Then, one might wonder how that same reaction is apparently universal, regardless of culture. Then, here comes NATURAL SELECTION to explain it.”
Natural selection only “explains” it in the sense that it explains why we walk upright and have stereoscopic vision. Indeed, the only thing that might bring evolutionary issues into play would be discovering that individuals used different parts of their brains to address the same sorts of questions.
JM Hanes on May 29, 2007 at 4:41 PM
RightWinged:
When you start taking up enormous ammounts of space to blockquote yourself at length, you’re just wasting everybody’s time. You don’t really imagine anybody is going to heed, not scroll, the rerun do you? Or think that repeating the same thing over and over will start producing different results? You’re not clarifying your original point; you’re burying it, and that’s too bad, because I think it was a point worth making.
JM Hanes on May 29, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Yeah, I just sort of gave up JM Hanes. As you probably have seen, I’ve made the point over and over (literally many dozens of times by now), and they just simply don’t get it or they are choosing to pretend they don’t so they don’t have to give a real response.
That last really long post I wrote was pretty much covering all bases so they couldn’t play dumb and wiggle out (even though I’d never really left them openings to wiggle out the other times). But it really should have been the end. Since Krydor continues to lie, pretend he can’t comprehend, and build straw man arguments, I’m forced to just repeat it. I suspect he will say that repeating myself doesn’t make me right, and that’s true in cases where you’re arguing two opposing points of view on a specific subject. In this case however, he continues to lie about things I’ve said and about what I’m really saying. He’s reading things in to my comments that aren’t there, so I’m left to just repeatedly expose his lies and deception by repeating where I already exposed it. It’s not just about repeating myself in a failed attempt to prove my point… because in reality my “point” isn’t even “mine”, it’s just about asking for honest reporting, plain and simple. Krydor keeps lying in saying that I’m asking why the theories change and that I’m talking about teaching the controversy… What am I supposed to do, when I’ve already explained and proven that he’s lying? If he keeps doing it, I’m left with no choice but to copy and paste where I already exposed him.
RightWinged on May 29, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2