Here at Templeton, we have this week posted our newest Big Question series of essays from major thinkers, all answering the same question. The new one is:
“Does moral action depend on reasoning?”
Go here to read all the answers. Contributors include Robbie George, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Jonah Lehrer, Stanley Fish, Joshua Greene and others. Really good stuff there.
I found this passage from top neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga’s essay to be illuminating. He answered the question, “Not really.” Here’s the gist of why:
First, most scientific research shows that morality is largely universal, which is to say, cross-cultural. It is also easily revealed to be present in young infants. It has a fixed sequence of development and is not flexible or subject to exceptions like social rules. Indeed, recent brain-imaging studies have found that a host of moral judgments seem to be more or less universally held and reflect identifiable underlying brain networks. From deciding on fairness in a monetary exchange to rendering levels of punishment to wrongdoers, the repertoire of common responses for all members of our species is growing into a rich list.
Second, there are many moral judgments that are widely believed not to fall into a universal category. These appear to be highly influenced by local culture and learning.
Third (and perhaps most surprising to everyday experience), all decision processes resulting in behaviors, no matter what their category, are carried out before one becomes consciously aware of them. Whether driven by internally determined and evolved structures or by learning and experience, these behaviors are executed by the brain in an orderly and automatic way. Given this uniformity in moral choices and in brain processes, why, then, do experimental subjects supply such a diverse set of reasons for their behavior?
This question is answered by the fourth discovery. There is a special device, usually in the brain’s left hemisphere, which seeks to understand the rationale behind the pattern of behavior observed in others and/or oneself. It is called the “interpreter” and concocts a story that appears to fit the variable behaviors in question. It follows from this that, since everyone has widely different experiences upon which to draw, the interpretation one comes up with will vary widely as well.
Fascinating, that last bit. I had not heard that before. We tell stories so we’ll know how to live. This is why the sages taught in parables. This is why it’s catastrophic when a culture loses its stories. Gazzaniga goes on to say that that brain research does not mean people should not be held responsible for their moral choices. After all, we’re social creatures, and we have the right to accept or reject moral principles embedded within the stories of our culture. Still, do not miss the point, especially if you are the parent of children: everyone will fill up their brain’s narrative storehouse from somewhere. Will those narratives come from your holy book or faith tradition — or will they come from popular culture? This may not matter to you, but if it does, then you — we, because I am convicted by this — have a lot of work to do pushing back as hard against this culture as it pushes against us.
In his essay, neuroscientist Antonio D’Amaso gives the most concise statement of what I believe is true:
My answer is a strong “yes” because the actions we can truly call moral depend on the work of reason at some stage in the process leading to their execution. But my answer is also “no” because the moment-to-moment execution of actions, moral or otherwise, is not necessarily under the control of reason, even if reason has a role in the deliberations behind the action and in strengthening the control system that executes it. My answer is an even stronger “no” if the question implies that moral actions are invented by reason, springing fully formed from the consorting of knowledge and logic.
Read all the essays and tell us who you think gets closest to the truth.
posted April 15, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Morality is how you treat others. All other concepts of morality are meaningless.
posted April 15, 2010 at 2:34 pm
For the benefit of those who are “Lost” fans (and even for those who couldn’t care less) in the Season 6 premiere a character was reading Salman Rushdie’s, “Haroun and the Sea of Stories” about a famous storyteller who loses his storytelling ability after his son doubts him and asks, “What’s the use of stories that aren’t even true?” Great question.
posted April 15, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“This is why it’s catastrophic when a culture loses its stories.”
I have 2 elementary age kids and based on some conversations with them, I realized that they don’t know A LOT of “stories”: Aesop’s fables, more than 2-3 Mother Goose rhymes, Grimm’s fairy tales, etc. I read to them constantly when they were little, but have depended entirely too much on their schools to continue that education. I spent the last week researching recommended reading lists from various sources like “The Educated Child”, “What your _________-grader Needs To Know” and some classic-education private school websites. We are systematically going through the list I compiled and re-reading the ones we think we know and exploring the new ones. My eyes (and the kids’) eyes have been opened by the un-Disney like version of these tales and the stark contrast between good and evil.
Adding these family readings to our Bible reading and Sunday School lessons are vital, I think, in perpetuating the ideals and morals/values I want to see in my kids. And, it’s been a lot of fun for this mom, as well.
posted April 15, 2010 at 3:55 pm
This ethics blog I was reading started out with a bang:
“Philosophers (and some theologians) often talk as if moral discernment was simply a matter of correct reasoning (e.g., deontologists vs. utilitarians). The last 25 years has seen a mini-resistance movement focusing more on moral character (virtues, passions, affections)–a return to classic and medieval interests in a postmodern era.”
I don’t think I’d ever seen the “correct reasoning” point of view put so sharply before. I really do think I fell into a trap about how to look at ethics.
Remember the famous definition of character? — “Character is what you do when you think nobody is looking.”
For more along these lines, see:
http://pilgrimpathways.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/moral-discernment-loyalties-interests-passions/#comment-162
posted April 15, 2010 at 4:44 pm
All of them were really interesting. I am a bit more suspicious of the brain science folks, who often seem to think that they can (sooner or later) explain happiness, love, faith, morality by brain action. I forget who said it, but someone once opined that if my thoughts are no more than the random motion of atoms in my brain, why should I believe them? Indeed, why should I believe that my brain is composed of atoms at all?
Many of the others basically agree on one thing: the answer to the overall question is yes and no. And I basically agree with that: we use reason sometimes, and other times rely on feeling and instinct. So morality does not necessarily depend upon reasoning. Where those feelings and instincts come from would be another interesting question.
I disagreed most with Aref Ali Nayed who said morality depends upon compassion. Before becoming a Christian, I had little compassion for anyone else and couldn’t be bothered with most others’ problems, and yet I knew in my heart there was something wrong with that. Call it the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, if you will.
But it is a really great series of essays.
posted April 15, 2010 at 8:19 pm
It would be nice if some of these folks knew something about actual history. The truth is the the truly successful folk throughout time were the ones who knew better than to worry about morality.
posted April 15, 2010 at 8:52 pm
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/adopting-a-psychopath/
“One of the three elements of the “MacDonald triad” is setting fires, the other two being cruelty to animals and bed-wetting. The triad has been found to be correlated to the emergence of serial killers. Serial killers are psychopaths — though not all psychopaths are serial killers. It’s possible that the adoptive mother found that her son showed signs of being a psychopath, and was not too happy about it.”
“Qualities that make psychopaths what they are include pathological lying, lack of empathy, amoral behavior, and a superficial sense of charm, the latter making them less likely to be identified and hence even more dangerous to others.”
“Research performed by the group of Essi Viding at the London Institute of Psychiatry found that both “callous-unemotional traits” and “antisocial behavior” in children, which are “early warning signs of life-long psychopathy,” were “under extremely strong genetic influence and no influence of shared environment.” This confirms what many others, notably parents of psychopathic children, have noticed, namely that psychopaths are born and not made.”
“Viding found that a subset of children with antisocial behavior but low levels of callous-unemotional traits did have some influence from shared environment. One might imagine that a Russian orphanage might not be the most caring of places and that it could influence the development of antisocial behavior.”
posted April 15, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Seems to me that a moral action requires one to choose as best as possible to good action over the bad action. To make the best choice one can make requires one to engage the rational faculty, reason.