“body style="width: 100%; margin: 0 auto;" bgcolor="#FFFFCC">
Chapter 2: Ethical Traditions |
||||||||||||||||||||
Section 3: Stages of Moral Development |
||||||||||||||||||||
(NOTE: You must read only those linked materials that are preceded by the capitalized word READ)I Where does morality come from? Does it come from religion? Many people think so but evidence indicates otherwise. READ: Morality is not in need of a belief in a deity. READ:Morality is independent of both a belief in a deity and religion itself.
READ:
READ:A non-religious basis for morality is superior
because religious morality is too rule based (principles) and restrictive
and less flexible than alternative approaches. People often
think and many claim that morality is dependent on religion. Some claim
religious morality is superior to secular morality. Some refer to the
nearly universal association of morality with religion on planet Earth as
evidence in support of their claims. This is backwards!!
Religion is
dependent upon and follows from morality and not the other way around.
Research is
showing that morality is linked with and dependent upon both physical
structures and functioning of the brain and on cultural inheritances.
MORALITY
results form both GENES and MEMES !!!
Neuroscience is
finding the brain structures and functioning that make for the "ethical
brain". How is this so? Humans are social animals and as Aristotle put
it zoon politikon. As such they have evolved in part due to a capacity
to relate to others and have empathy and sympathy for others that serves as
the base for acceptance of basic rules of conduct needed to live with
others in relative peace sufficient to support social or group life and then
the advantages of social life. Evolutionary Psychology is finding/hypothesizing the evolution
of moral notions as an expression of the hardwiring. The brain appears to
have structures evolved and passed on through our genetic makeup (GENES) that provide for EMPATHY and SYMPATHY and
CONCERN for OTHERS. These each in some way enhanced survival ability for
the social species of homo sapiens. Morality is a result of and expression
of those operations. Particular moral expressions or rules are enunciated
and passed on as cultural inheritances and thus MEMES.
The primatologist, Frans de Waal, was on of
many who have argued that the roots of human morality lie in social animals
such as the primates, including apes and monkeys. The feelings of empathy
and expectations of reciprocity are necessary for the behaviors needed to
make any mammalian group exist as individuals living in the midst of others.
This set of feelings and expectations of reciprocity may be taken as the
basis for human morality. Neuroscientists are locating that sense in mirror
neurons in the brain.
“Morality is as firmly grounded in
neurobiology as anything else we do or are,” Dr. de Waal wrote in his 1996
book “Good Natured. READ
Other primates
have the basic for what humans call morality:
Empathy
and Consolation
Prosocial Tendencies
Reciprocity and Fairness
In
The Ethical Brain
by Michael Gazzaniga (Dana Press: NY, 2005) the neuroscientist describes
experimental evidence to support his claims that the left hemisphere of the
brain operates to unify the various systems within the brain and serves as
an interpreter to fashion stories that become the personal beliefs of each
person. Humans need beliefs and belief systems to
make sense of their sensory inputs. The human species reacts to events
and the brain interprets the reaction. Out of those interpretations
there arise the beliefs by which people guide their actions. Some of
the beliefs lead to rules by which people will live. And so there
emerges a a moral sense upon practical considerations. The left
hemisphere continually functions to interpret events and to create stories
to accommodate the sensory and ideational inputs. Whenever there is
information that does not fit the self image created by the interpreter or
the conceptual framework or belief system previously held and operative,
then the interpreter will create a belief to make sense of it in some manner
or hold it in some way relation to previous information and beliefs.
The human species has a core set of reactions to challenges. Humans share
similar reactions to situations. They share the evocation of empathy
and sympathy. Humans have mirror neurons that evoke this reaction.
Other primate also have such mirror neurons. They appear to make a
social life possible. Gazzaniga holds that there exists some deep structure
in the brain driving not only a certain common set of values as expressions
of the evoked responses but also the need to create cultural edifices or
social constructs for moral codes. Thus religion evolves to satisfy
that drive.
Religions may
have begun from a instinctual reaction common to humans. It evolved
into a social support system and system of rationalizations (beliefs) that
attempt to make sense of the individual responses to one another and to
situations faced by all humans.
Gazziniga holds
that there are neural correlates of the religious experience in the temporal
lobes of the brain. Temporal lobe epilepsy has as one of its symptoms
a hyper religiosity.
Gazziniga holds
for the possibility of a universal ethics for all humans based on the most
basic of evocations shared by all humans. Current research utilizing
moral sense testing is producing interesting findings in support of the
hypothesis of a genetic base for morality in humans.
For Gazzaniga
humans want to believe, they want to believe in a natural order and they
want a codification of their most basic empathetic responses towards others.
Gazzaniga wants science, as neuroscience to assist the human community to
have what it appears to need and based on the best information available.
So humans are
hardwired and programmed for morality and religion rides in on that as a
context in which the programming results in producing a fuller expression.
This in turn is culturally transmitted and thus the human impulse is most
often being routed through religious institutions and practices.
There is
consideration given to the impact of looking at morality as rooted in the
evolution of the species and in the neural endowment of human brains.
READ:
Is “the new neuromorality” a threat to traditional views of
right and wrong?
by Cathy Young
from Reason FOundation August/September 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, in Moral Minds (HarperCollins 2006) holds
that humans are born with a moral grammar wired
into their neural circuits by evolution. This system in the brain
generates instant moral judgments. This was needed in part because
often quick decisions must be made in situations where life is threatened.
In such predicaments there is no time for accessing the conscious mind.
Most people appear to be unaware of this deep moral processing because the
left hemisphere of the brain has been adept at producing interpretations
of events and information and doing so rapidly thus generating what may be
accepted as rationalizations for the decision or impulse and response that
is produced rapidly by the brain without conscious attention even being
possible.
Hauser has presented an argument with a
hypothesis to be tested empirically. That process is underway . There
is considerable support for it already gathered in work with primates and in
close examination of the works of and research now being conducted by moral
philosophers as well as by primatologists and neuroscientists.
"Morality without religion"
by Marc Hauser and Peter Singer, December, 2005
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/HauserSinger.pdf
Consider the
following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank with morally
“obligatory”, “permissible” or “forbidden.”
If you judged
case 1 as permissible, case 2 as obligatory, and case 3 as forbidden, then
you are like the 1500 subjects around the world who responded to these
dilemmas on our web-based moral sense test [http://moral.wjh.edu]. On the
view that morality is God’s word, atheists should judge these cases
differently from people with religious background and beliefs, and when
asked to justify their responses, should bring forward different
explanations. For example, since atheists lack a moral compass, they should
go with pure self-interest, and walk by the drowning baby. Results show
something completely different. There were no statistically significant
differences between subjects with or without religious backgrounds, with
approximately 90% of subjects saying that it is permissible to flip the
switch on the boxcar, 97% saying that it is obligatory to rescue the baby,
and 97% saying that is forbidden to remove the healthy man’s organs. . When
asked to justify why some cases are permissible and others forbidden,
subjects are either clueless or offer explanations that can not account for
the differences in play.
VIEW: Dr.
Massimo Pigliucci
Research in
Neuroscience has proceeded so far as to call into discussion how humans
are responsible for their actions and the degree to which all ethical
thinking or morality is merely post facto rationalizations for the near
automatic responses made to situations by the brain. READ:
The Brain on the Stand
by
Jeffrey Rosen on recent scientific work and its implications.
Parents
Siblings
Friends
School
Religion
Media- television, films, videos, music, music
videos
Advertising
How exactly each person develops their ideas
about right and wrong is a subject being studied by psychologists. This type of study is part of what is known as Moral
Psychology. One of the most
famous of the psychologists who does such studies is Lawrence Kohlberg. He has a theory of moral development based upon his research with
people from very young ages through the adult years.
His work confirms and expands upon an earlier
theory by the American Philosopher John Dewey.
Stages
of moral development
John Dewey
Lawrence Kohlberg
I. Pre-conventional : concern for self
1. Reward / Punishment
I. Pre-conventional
concern for
self
2. Reciprocity
II. Conventional: concern for self and
others
3. Ideal Model -Conformity
II.
Conventional concern for
self and others
4. Law and Order
III. Post Conventional: concern for others
5. Social Contract
III. Post Conventional
concern for
others
6. Universal Principles
To understand each of these six stages read:
READ:
Kohlberg’s Theory by Robert N. Barger
at
http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/kohlberg01bk.htm
Kohlberg used scenarios to elicit responses
from his subjects concerning their thinking about what makes an act right
or wrong. He was less
concerned with their answer as to what they would do or approve of in
others as he was interested in their reason for thinking as they did. Here is a simplification of his famous Heinz Scenario:
How would you solve the following scenario which Kohlberg used on
his research subjects ? A man named Heinz had a dying wife. The wife had an almost fatal
disease. The local druggist owned a $20,000 drug that could save her. Heinz could not raise the money in time and he certainly did not
have the cash to buy the drug. Heinz therefore made a decision and that night he broke into the
drug store and stole some of the medication. Should Heinz have done that? Why do you think that?
Kohlberg thought that fewer than 25% of people ever progress beyond
the fourth stage and do so because of some event that presses them to
develop further.
Events can force a person to move further. The decision to have an abortion, to resist the draft or to assist
your mother lying on her death bed to die quickly and with less pain and
suffering are the sorts of events for which individuals must come to face
just what it is that makes an action right or wrong. It is at those times and through those events that individuals come
to learn what their values are, who they are and what their moral rules
will be. Consulting with
friends and religious advisors about such matters will bring much advice
but leave the decision-making about the rules and the actions to the
individual.
VIEW:
Kohlberg's Theory of
Moral Development
For more recent studies READ:
Learning Right From Wrong
READ The Moral
Instinct by Stephen Pinker
What of the those without an "Ethical Brain"
What of the Psychopath and those lacking in Empathy and Sympathy?
Brain
scans of convicted serial killers who are diagnosed as psychopaths with the
lack of empathy and sympathy indicate abnormal brain patterns. There may be
connectivity abnormalities in the orbital cortex region of the brain.
The cortical limbic system may be linked to the behavior patterns many would
deem to be immoral or even evil.
To go to the next
section of this chapter click here>
NEXT. |
||||||||||||||||||||
© Copyright Philip A. Pecorino 2002. All Rights reserved. Web Surfer's Caveat: These are class notes, intended to comment on readings and amplify class discussion. They should be read as such. They are not intended for publication or general distribution |
Return to: Table of Contents for the Online Textbook |