What do we know about the science of human morality?

[!Kaggen]

I would like some input as to what we know about the science of human morality.

Just to be clear I am not asking the question what does science tell us is morality as a idea but what is necessary for humans to even have the idea of morality.

I am thinking of morality as a property of the brain, like intelligence .
I am not asking how we define morality scientifically, but how do we account for it scientifically.

I was thinking that the lower income kids might not be responding to the healthier food since they might be permanently impaired due to a combination of poor nutrition and stimulation neglect already at an early pre-school age when there brains were forming.
The richer kids might just be impaired due to their current poor diet, but have the capacity for better results.

It would be a big concern if poor nutrition and a lack of stimulation at an early formative age had a permanent affect which could not be corrected later.

This idea got me thinking about morality, mental capacity and mental health.

So many questions come up.

How much of an individuals sense of morality is a function of a healthy and well developed brain?

Is morality simply a property of a healthy fully developed brain?

Is moral religion simply a development to enforce on the poorer masses an abstract morality by richer people who had an inner sense of morality as a function of a healthier brain?

Would it not be better to spend money and time on making sure everyone developed a healthy well developed brain in there formative years than spend money on law and order when it was too late?

And finally is atheism a function of a healthy well developed brain?

in a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171426)
I started about some research done on Jamie Olivers school diners.

to add

Is there any specific research on the relationship between brain health and the idea of morality?

[Trent Wray]

This might be a small part (http://www.usnews.com/health/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2010/03/24/brains-moral-outrage-center-pinpointed.html), after a quick google:

WEDNESDAY, March 24 (HealthDay News) -- Your ability to judge wrongdoing and get angry at the perpetrator seems to be based in a part of the brain that regulates emotions, neuroscientists say.

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report that people who suffer from damage in this area of the brain, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, don't react appropriately when they consider hypothetical situations in which one person unsuccessfully tries to kill another person. The researchers say people with the brain damage don't consider the perpetrator to be morally responsible for the actions.


"Were slowly chipping away at the structure of morality," said Liane Young, a postdoctoral associate in MITs Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and lead author of a new study, in a statement. "We're not the first to show that emotions matter for morality, but this is a more precise look at how emotions matter."

[macdoc]

Pretty wide bunch of science on morality ( fairness ) even in capucins so the biological base is sound and I think we can see it emergent in other higher order species as acceptable/unacceptable behaviour and much is taught while other is inherent in our human nature ( loaded phrase that :rolleyes: ).

My sense always is that attempts to codify extent morality by way of laws must stay close to our innate sense of fairness or risk being a failure or even a revolution in the worst case.

( drug use laws for instance ).

Identifying scientifically our range of tolerances to behaviours ( that is what morality emerges from ) can I think help deal with an over populated planet.

It may help identify things like why teenage boys take risks or rebel etc and aid in social programs to blunt the negative impact of that.

Some of the pre-verbal experiments with human children and their inherent willingness to help are fascinating..
Good topic - hard to pin down tho....

The capucin "sense of fairness" experiments are wonderfully informative BTW.

Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says
17 Sep 2003 ... This suggests that knowing what's fair and what's not is a product of ... you're not the only species to have a sense of fair play. Blame evolution. Researchers studying brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have found

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_monkeyfairness.html

and chimps

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Chimps have 'sense of fair play'
26 Jan 2005 ... Fair play award. The same reaction is seen in humans, ... the same team identified a sense of fairness in capuchin monkeys. ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4207351.stm

and dogs

Dogs have a sense of fair play | Science | guardian.co.uk
8 Dec 2008 ... Dogs have a sense of fair play. This article was published on guardian.co.uk at 18.59 GMT on Monday 8 December 2008. ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/08/dogs-envy-fairness-social-behaviour

and this recently

Humans and Primates Share Sense of Fair Play - nsf.gov - National ...
22 Feb 2010 ... The discovery of capuchin monkeys in the wild using stones as nutcrackers may tell us ... Primates and humans share a sense of fair play
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/science_nation/monkeybusiness.jsp

I think the key is to both understand the nature of that emergent morality in group and species, recognize the same mechanisms in ourselves and perhaps apply that to our educational and legal system.

Just maybe we could get a peaceable planet.....tho I do admire the bonobos method of conflict settlement ;) :garfield:

[Dancing David]

Wow, this is a sticky mess. There seems to be a biological basis for making judgments but sorting out the social factors would be daunting.

The big issue is that mores seem to be so flexible, look at the tolerance for violence, it varies widely from group to group and time to ime.

[macdoc]

Indeed.
It's not only making judgements but patterns of reactions as well.....

It's very asymmetrical.....there not a constant gradient in response to perceived unfairness...there is a tipping point at which revenge even at the sake one's own well being ( reward ) outweighs reward....

Then we have to take into account tribal dynamics alpha leaders and the spectrum of selfless versus self-interested in any population group....

I maintain with the exception of far end of the spectrum socio/psychopaths and those who are pathologically driven to self sacrifice we are all a mix of both drives.

I think the interesting thing from a science standpoint is how well codified laws guiding morality can curb some of the more damaging aspects of our built in toolbox.

ie
fear of others/differences ( racism and other discrimination - gays etc )

male/female relations...inherent male alpha behaviour versus equality regulations...

We spend a lot of time and effort fighting inherent tendencies tho some of the worst ones are taught behaviours....
:crowded:

[Gord_in_Toronto]

IMHO Evolutionary_game_theory explains all.

Cooperative populations tend to have a survival advantage over non-cooperative ones. "Morality" provides an incentive to cooperate and thus is selected for.

:th:

[!Kaggen]

Thanks for the responses and links.
There must be some evolutionary advantage to moral behavior as Macdoc referred to.
There also must be areas of the brain which if damaged effect morality as Trent referred to.
I am not sure we are addressing the environmental (epigenetic :D) effects on moral development though.
These would be behavioral, DD example of social factors influencing the tolerance of violence and nutrition, which I think the Jamie Oliver report brings up.
DD, surely the development years of an infant when the brain wiring happens is critical for brain capable of a sense of morality?
What do you think about the idea that the poorer children in the Jamie Oliver diner program did not respond to the improved nutrition like the richer kids, indicating a possible brain development issue?

[Dancing David]

Thanks for the responses and links.
There must be some evolutionary advantage to moral behavior as Macdoc referred to.
There also must be areas of the brain which if damaged effect morality as Trent referred to.
I am not sure we are addressing the environmental (epigenetic :D) effects on moral development though.
These would be behavioral, DD example of social factors influencing the tolerance of violence and nutrition, which I think the Jamie Oliver report brings up.
DD, surely the development years of an infant when the brain wiring happens is critical for brain capable of a sense of morality?
What do you think about the idea that the poorer children in the Jamie Oliver diner program did not respond to the improved nutrition like the richer kids, indicating a possible brain development issue?

Um, as to Jamie Oliver, small sample, uncontrolled variables?

[macdoc]

Well FAS is certainly well documented when it comes to moral behaviour.
The kids just don't grow past the petty theft stage that most kids go through ( including my own and myself ) at an early age.

I find it one of the knottiest ethical issues to deal with....these kids through no fault of their own have a mental defect due to mothers self inflicted drinking.
Yet they are fine in most other ways.

In this case sins of the parent are indeed paid for by the child - sad :(:(

it's one thing to destroy your own life and brain..another your child's :mad:

[!Kaggen]

Um, as to Jamie Oliver, small sample, uncontrolled variables?
Ah come on DD. We are not talking conclusive evidence yet.
It is an interesting finding and certainly not something to ignore.
I do not see any reason why nutrition will not affect the brains function and development.
Its a start and something I think would have a major impact for relatively little effort.
More research needed :)

[!Kaggen]

Well FAS is certainly well documented when it comes to moral behaviour.
The kids just don't grow past the petty theft stage that most kids go through ( including my own and myself ) at an early age.

I find it one of the knottiest ethical issues to deal with....these kids through no fault of their own have a mental defect due to mothers self inflicted drinking.
Yet they are fine in most other ways.

In this case sins of the parent are indeed paid for by the child - sad :(:(

it's one thing to destroy your own life and brain..another your child's :mad:
Good example here in South Africa amongst farm workers who I personally work with everyday were a little effort would go a long way.
Pity there is not a pill for FAS otherwise I think more would be done.
It is a classic social solution issue were hard science has had little impact except for recording the effects.

[macdoc]

Exactly - a huge ethical issue for the rest of society...

I can see the issue in South Africa....booze is so cheap here...even my friends are very negatively affected by it.... :(

'Course there are many challenges here...it's lovely being a swallow and just floating in for a few months and the country is just flat out magical in it's landscape and flora but wow the social issues....

It is too bad there is not a pill and I don't think even any predictor.....
since FAS babies and kids have physical symptoms it must be very difficult for a doctor to tell a parent and for the parent to have to live with themselves...

One of those as you say where science can observe but do very very little.

Where are you in SA?
I'm in Montagu in the Western Cape and that will be winter home for the forseeable future.
Heading back to Canada on Monday - sort of conflicted...love it here but looking forward to Ontario springtime too..:boggled:

[!Kaggen]

I have a farm just outside Stellenbosch.
Your right, one becomes a bit schizophrenic living in South Africa such big contrasts.
A proper spring emerging from the snows of winter is certainly lacking in South Africa.
I experienced this once in Austria and it was magic.
I can understand the longing for this experience especially if you grew up with it.

[Miss_Kitt]

I think that morality--not the content of morality per se, but having a moral response--is indeed hardwired into human brains, and those of other primates as well. There is evidence to suggest it is present in other 'higher' animals, too. Moral awareness--being concerned with how certain actions by oneself or another individual impact other individuals--may well be an emergent property of a certain level of brain development.

While I do not know of specific studies on this, I would certainly not be surprised that this aspect, as well as other aspects of brain development, are negatively impacted by malnourishment, illness, exposure to toxins, and treatment/stimulation/interaction in infancy and early childhood. And, as in other aspects of brain development, there are probably genetic issues as well.

Just my thoughts, MK