3 ms·
> different forms of moralizing - utilitarian and the categorical imperative - use different brain systems. Whenever a neuroscientist gets involved in these de
by rkts 19y ago
> different forms of moralizing - utilitarian and the categorical imperative - use different brain systems.
Whenever a neuroscientist gets involved in these debates, I see a lot of claims like this. "Thinking about x uses brain system y, therefore [some outrageous claim]."
In this case, you seem to be suggesting that the brain activity proves "both types of morality are wired into us," but that doesn't follow at all. Brain activity doesn't tell us whether utilitarianism or the categorical imperative accurately model what is really happening in the brain, or whether the corresponding thoughts and behaviors are innate or learned.
- olavk 19y agoIt is actually a scientific documented phenomenon that many people believe outrageous claims as long as they seem to be justified by random neurobabble . PDF: "The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations" http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Edls73/Assets/Weisberg-neuro%20explanations.pdf http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Edls73/Assets/Weisberg-neuro%20ex... Quote: "Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation of a psychological phenomenon may interfere with people's abilities to critically consider the underlying logic of this explanation." A summary from Language Log here: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004578.html http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004578.h...
- robg 19y agoI know this exists because I've seen to happen and I shudder every time. But it's not just just "neurobabble". It's possible to obfuscate in any domain. The problem is: You can never be certain of what's babble and what's real without doing the intellectual heavy lifting yourself. In neuroscience, my ability to see a poorly designed study is only as good as the methods and theories get closer to what I know. So I decline being a reviewer of manuscripts if I don't know enough to sufficiently judge them.
- robg 19y agoWired or not wired, we have no idea. That would involve very expensive longitudinal (or perhaps genetic) studies. And the claims you see are no doubt filtered by the popular press. Be careful with sweeping generalizations there. But don't ignore the fact that very good work has already been done, and we know much more than we did even five years ago - even for something as seemingly ephemeral as "morality" (though we'll never get to "why" - that's a space I'm happy to leave to armchair philosophers around the interent). What we know is that solving different sorts of moral problems (of the JS Mills or Kant type) involves different brain systems. And these experiments were conducted by a Ph.D. in philosophy who bemoaned the state of the modern field, and went on to do excellent neuroimaging work. Read for yourself: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/ http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/