Finally, an Explanation for Mountain Bikers' Utter Lack of Morality!



M

Mike Vandeman

Guest
Obviously, they lack feeling for wildlife and other trail users!

Mike


http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/03.22/05-brain.html

Unfeeling moral choices traced to damaged frontal lobes
By Steve Bradt
FAS Communications
Consider the following scenario: Someone you know has AIDS and plans
to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let
it happen or to kill the person. Do you pull the trigger?

Most people waver or say they could not, even if they agree that in
theory they should. But according to a new study in the journal
Nature, subjects with damage to a part of the frontal lobe make a less
personal calculation. The logical choice, they say, is to sacrifice
one life to save many.

Conducted by researchers at Harvard University, the University of
Southern California (USC), the California Institute of Technology, and
the University of Iowa, the study shows that emotion plays an
important role in scenarios that pose a moral dilemma. If certain
emotions are blocked, we make decisions that — right or wrong — seem
unnaturally cold.

The scenarios in the study are extreme, but the core dilemma is not:
Should one confront a co-worker, challenge a neighbor, or scold a
loved one in the interest of the greater good?

"Our work provides the first causal account of the role of emotions in
moral judgments," says co-senior author Marc Hauser, professor of
psychology at Harvard and Harvard College Professor. But, Hauser adds,
not all moral reasoning depends so strongly on emotion.

"What is absolutely astonishing about our results is how selective the
deficit is," he says. "Damage to the frontal lobe leaves intact a
suite of moral problem-solving abilities, but damages judgments in
which an aversive action is put into direct conflict with a strong
utilitarian outcome."

A total of 30 subjects of both genders faced a set of scenarios
pitting immediate harm to one person against future certain harm to
many. Six had damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a
small region behind the forehead, while 12 had brain damage elsewhere,
and another 12 had no damage. The subjects with VMPC damage stood out
in their stated willingness to harm an individual — a prospect that
usually generates strong aversion.

"Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in
real life. They seem to lack empathy and compassion," says Ralph
Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Caltech.

"In those circumstances most people without this specific brain damage
will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that
conflict," says co-senior author Antonio Damasio, director of the
Brain and Creativity Institute and holder of the David Dornsife Chair
in Neuroscience at USC.

It is the feeling of aversion that normally blocks humans from harming
each other. Damasio describes it as "a combination of rejection of the
act, but combined with the social emotion of compassion for that
particular person."

"The question is, are the social emotions necessary to make these
moral judgments," Adolphs says.

Their study's answer may inform a classic philosophical debate on
whether humans make moral judgments based on norms and societal rules,
or based on their emotions.

The study holds another implication for philosophy: By showing that
humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, the
study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different
philosophies for compatibility with human nature.

The Nature study expands on work on emotion and decision making
Damasio started in the early 1990s, which caught the public eye in his
first book, "Descartes' Error." Hauser, whose behavioral work in
animals has attempted to identify precursors to moral behavior, then
teamed up with Damasio's group to extend those observations.

Other authors on the study are Fiery Cushman and Liane Young of
Harvard and Michael Koenigs and Daniel Tranel of the University of
Iowa. Funding for the research came from the National Institutes of
Health, the National Science Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
The only one here that has a factual demonstrated lack of morality is you,
Michael.

And, according to the article YOU published, you should petition to have
your frontal lobes reattached. Clearly, you are able to stand behind people
that are willing to maim and kill others for your cause. You and they share
a similar hatred for those that ride bikes, and you have been known to
support stringing wires across a trail that would seriously harm a human.
You have posted stories here that "prove" your position relative to the
dangers of bike riders, but those stories have nothing at all to do with
riding a bike.

Yes, my friend, you need your frontal lobes back. Your morality is seriously
in question here. (Personally, I don't think returing your lobes would
improve your moral stature, but it couldn't hurt.)




"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Obviously, they lack feeling for wildlife and other trail users!
>
> Mike
>
>
> http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/03.22/05-brain.html
>
> Unfeeling moral choices traced to damaged frontal lobes
> By Steve Bradt
> FAS Communications
> Consider the following scenario: Someone you know has AIDS and plans
> to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let
> it happen or to kill the person. Do you pull the trigger?
>
> Most people waver or say they could not, even if they agree that in
> theory they should. But according to a new study in the journal
> Nature, subjects with damage to a part of the frontal lobe make a less
> personal calculation. The logical choice, they say, is to sacrifice
> one life to save many.
>
> Conducted by researchers at Harvard University, the University of
> Southern California (USC), the California Institute of Technology, and
> the University of Iowa, the study shows that emotion plays an
> important role in scenarios that pose a moral dilemma. If certain
> emotions are blocked, we make decisions that - right or wrong - seem
> unnaturally cold.
>
> The scenarios in the study are extreme, but the core dilemma is not:
> Should one confront a co-worker, challenge a neighbor, or scold a
> loved one in the interest of the greater good?
>
> "Our work provides the first causal account of the role of emotions in
> moral judgments," says co-senior author Marc Hauser, professor of
> psychology at Harvard and Harvard College Professor. But, Hauser adds,
> not all moral reasoning depends so strongly on emotion.
>
> "What is absolutely astonishing about our results is how selective the
> deficit is," he says. "Damage to the frontal lobe leaves intact a
> suite of moral problem-solving abilities, but damages judgments in
> which an aversive action is put into direct conflict with a strong
> utilitarian outcome."
>
> A total of 30 subjects of both genders faced a set of scenarios
> pitting immediate harm to one person against future certain harm to
> many. Six had damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a
> small region behind the forehead, while 12 had brain damage elsewhere,
> and another 12 had no damage. The subjects with VMPC damage stood out
> in their stated willingness to harm an individual - a prospect that
> usually generates strong aversion.
>
> "Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in
> real life. They seem to lack empathy and compassion," says Ralph
> Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Caltech.
>
> "In those circumstances most people without this specific brain damage
> will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that
> conflict," says co-senior author Antonio Damasio, director of the
> Brain and Creativity Institute and holder of the David Dornsife Chair
> in Neuroscience at USC.
>
> It is the feeling of aversion that normally blocks humans from harming
> each other. Damasio describes it as "a combination of rejection of the
> act, but combined with the social emotion of compassion for that
> particular person."
>
> "The question is, are the social emotions necessary to make these
> moral judgments," Adolphs says.
>
> Their study's answer may inform a classic philosophical debate on
> whether humans make moral judgments based on norms and societal rules,
> or based on their emotions.
>
> The study holds another implication for philosophy: By showing that
> humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, the
> study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different
> philosophies for compatibility with human nature.
>
> The Nature study expands on work on emotion and decision making
> Damasio started in the early 1990s, which caught the public eye in his
> first book, "Descartes' Error." Hauser, whose behavioral work in
> animals has attempted to identify precursors to moral behavior, then
> teamed up with Damasio's group to extend those observations.
>
> Other authors on the study are Fiery Cushman and Liane Young of
> Harvard and Michael Koenigs and Daniel Tranel of the University of
> Iowa. Funding for the research came from the National Institutes of
> Health, the National Science Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore
> Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation.
> ===
> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>
> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
> fond of!
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:46:38 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The only one here that has a factual demonstrated lack of morality is you,
>Michael.
>
>And, according to the article YOU published, you should petition to have
>your frontal lobes reattached. Clearly, you are able to stand behind people
>that are willing to maim and kill others for your cause. You and they share
>a similar hatred for those that ride bikes, and you have been known to
>support stringing wires across a trail that would seriously harm a human.
>You have posted stories here that "prove" your position relative to the
>dangers of bike riders, but those stories have nothing at all to do with
>riding a bike.
>
>Yes, my friend, you need your frontal lobes back. Your morality is seriously
>in question here. (Personally, I don't think returing your lobes would
>improve your moral stature, but it couldn't hurt.)
>
>
>
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Obviously, they lack feeling for wildlife and other trail users!
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/03.22/05-brain.html
>>
>> Unfeeling moral choices traced to damaged frontal lobes
>> By Steve Bradt
>> FAS Communications
>> Consider the following scenario: Someone you know has AIDS and plans
>> to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let
>> it happen or to kill the person. Do you pull the trigger?
>>
>> Most people waver or say they could not, even if they agree that in
>> theory they should. But according to a new study in the journal
>> Nature, subjects with damage to a part of the frontal lobe make a less
>> personal calculation. The logical choice, they say, is to sacrifice
>> one life to save many.
>>
>> Conducted by researchers at Harvard University, the University of
>> Southern California (USC), the California Institute of Technology, and
>> the University of Iowa, the study shows that emotion plays an
>> important role in scenarios that pose a moral dilemma. If certain
>> emotions are blocked, we make decisions that - right or wrong - seem
>> unnaturally cold.
>>
>> The scenarios in the study are extreme, but the core dilemma is not:
>> Should one confront a co-worker, challenge a neighbor, or scold a
>> loved one in the interest of the greater good?
>>
>> "Our work provides the first causal account of the role of emotions in
>> moral judgments," says co-senior author Marc Hauser, professor of
>> psychology at Harvard and Harvard College Professor. But, Hauser adds,
>> not all moral reasoning depends so strongly on emotion.
>>
>> "What is absolutely astonishing about our results is how selective the
>> deficit is," he says. "Damage to the frontal lobe leaves intact a
>> suite of moral problem-solving abilities, but damages judgments in
>> which an aversive action is put into direct conflict with a strong
>> utilitarian outcome."
>>
>> A total of 30 subjects of both genders faced a set of scenarios
>> pitting immediate harm to one person against future certain harm to
>> many. Six had damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a
>> small region behind the forehead, while 12 had brain damage elsewhere,
>> and another 12 had no damage. The subjects with VMPC damage stood out
>> in their stated willingness to harm an individual - a prospect that
>> usually generates strong aversion.
>>
>> "Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in
>> real life. They seem to lack empathy and compassion," says Ralph
>> Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Caltech.
>>
>> "In those circumstances most people without this specific brain damage
>> will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that
>> conflict," says co-senior author Antonio Damasio, director of the
>> Brain and Creativity Institute and holder of the David Dornsife Chair
>> in Neuroscience at USC.
>>
>> It is the feeling of aversion that normally blocks humans from harming
>> each other. Damasio describes it as "a combination of rejection of the
>> act, but combined with the social emotion of compassion for that
>> particular person."
>>
>> "The question is, are the social emotions necessary to make these
>> moral judgments," Adolphs says.
>>
>> Their study's answer may inform a classic philosophical debate on
>> whether humans make moral judgments based on norms and societal rules,
>> or based on their emotions.
>>
>> The study holds another implication for philosophy: By showing that
>> humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, the
>> study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different
>> philosophies for compatibility with human nature.
>>
>> The Nature study expands on work on emotion and decision making
>> Damasio started in the early 1990s, which caught the public eye in his
>> first book, "Descartes' Error." Hauser, whose behavioral work in
>> animals has attempted to identify precursors to moral behavior, then
>> teamed up with Damasio's group to extend those observations.
>>
>> Other authors on the study are Fiery Cushman and Liane Young of
>> Harvard and Michael Koenigs and Daniel Tranel of the University of
>> Iowa. Funding for the research came from the National Institutes of
>> Health, the National Science Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore
>> Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation.
>> ===
>> I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
>> humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
>> years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
>>
>> Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
>> fond of!
>>
>> http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


Did you say something?
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 

Similar threads