03/17/2004
Dilemmas
This morning, as has been the case almost every morning since we’ve come to Marco Island, I must decide whether to walk north or walk south on the beach. It’s a decision that depends in part on the wind direction – do I want the wind in my face when I’m barely awake at 6 AM or on the return trip when I’m already rather tired from the 45-minute walk to either end of the beach? In the predawn hour that I walk, I typically meet few fellow walkers and usually greet those I meet with a cheery good morning. Some walkers obviously don’t want to be spoken to and I have to decide whether or not to greet them. I had no difficulty deciding not to greet one walker yesterday. This fellow hung his head down and his mood was clearly one of gloom and doom. Then I looked at his sweatshirt and the reason for his dour mood was obvious. Emblazoned on the shirt in large letters was “Chicago Cubs”! Poor fellow!
I make the above decisions very quickly and don’t ponder or fret that I’ve done the wrong thing. However, a couple days ago I faced a decision on my walk that involved life or death and even now I feel badly that, from the moral standpoint, I probably made a bad decision. I spotted a sugar starfish as I walked down the beach. It was a perfect specimen, with five “arms” and I picked it up. But was it dead or alive? I pondered this question for a minute or so and wasn’t able to convince myself either way. So, I tossed it back into the Gulf and continued my walk. About a half hour later, on my return up the beach, what should I see but what I’m reasonably certain was the very same starfish washed back up on the sand in the same location. Well, wasn’t this a clear sign that I should take the creature back to our condo? Yet it took some serious consideration before I did just that.
At the time, this seemingly minor moral decision paled in comparison with the difficult choices required in hypothetical cases cited in an article I had read in the April 2004 issue of Discover magazine. The article by Carl Zimmer is titled “Whose Life Would You Save?” and covers some of the same ground as another article by Gretchen Vogel titled “The Evolution of the Golden Rule” that appeared in the February 20 issue of Science. The articles concern questions of morality and fairness and how our brain handles decisions of a moral nature.
Take the work of Joshua Greene, a young postdoctoral researcher at Princeton University. Greene, a philosopher, likes to pose moral dilemmas and get people’s reaction to them. Judging from some of the dilemmas philosophers come up with, they seem to be a gloomy lot. Could it be that they are all Chicago Cubs fans? What could be more depressing than having to confront the following dilemma, a dilemma dreamed up by Judith Jarvis Thompson and Philippa Foot? You’re the driver of a trolley and you realize suddenly that your brakes have failed. You’re going along at full speed and a fork in the track looms directly ahead. If you do nothing, the trolley will bear left. However, there are five workers repairing the track on that left fork. If you hit a switch, you will take the right fork. There’s a lone worker on the right track. Do nothing and you kill five people; hit the switch and you kill just one person. What do you do? I’d like to think that I, like most people, would hit the switch.
But these philosophers can be cruel and challenge you with the same essential situation, but with a twist. Now you’re on a bridge and can see the runaway trolley approaching underneath. This time there’s no fork, just straight track. You see five workers on the track in the trolley’s path. Standing on the bridge in front of you is a huge fellow, weighing about 500 pounds. If you push him off the bridge onto the track below, he’s so big that if the trolley hits him it will be stopped or at least slowed enough that the five workers will have time to get off the track. Your choice is the same as before – five lives or one? Do you push the guy off the bridge?
The logical thing to do in both cases seems clear, save the five men and sacrifice the one. But deliberately pushing a man to his death is a lot different than hitting a switch. I certainly would have trouble pushing the guy off the bridge. This moral dilemma illustrates the difference in two modern theories of moral reasoning shaped by two giants in philosophy, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Kant was of the opinion that pure reason could lead to moral truths while Mill believed that the rules of right and wrong should lead to results that achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Greene sums up the opposing views: “Kant puts what’s right before what’s good” while “Mill puts what’s good before what’s right.”
Casting aside both Kant and Mill, Greene goes back to David Hume, an 18th century Scottish philosopher, who concluded that people say something is good because it makes them feel good and something is bad because it disgusts them. But Greene is more than just a philosopher and is carrying out experiments to support his view. By employing magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, he is able to determine what parts of the brain are activated when volunteer subjects are presented with statements of moral dilemmas such as the trolley example. He also checks their responses to questions of a more mundane nature akin to my decision about going north or south on the beach.
Sure enough, different parts of the brain are active when the questions are relatively unemotional compared to when questions involve personal moral decisions. The bottom line in his studies to date seems to be that, when a moral decision is truly of a personal nature (do I push the guy?), we aren’t relying on reasoning alone to make judgments of right and wrong. Instead, we are relying largely on our emotions. Furthermore, Greene suggests that these dilemmas that he poses are triggering emotional responses that are wired into our brains as a result of millions of years of evolution.
Hume’s view doesn’t seem to say anything about making a reasoned moral judgment, does it? One way of looking at whether or not something is morally correct is to ask is it fair? Is fairness hard wired in our brains? The answer might have been decided with grapes and cucumbers! Both the Discover and Science articles cite a paper published last years in the August 2003 issue of Nature. The paper contained the results of studies by researchers Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal at Emory University. If you were looking for a snack, which would you prefer, grapes or a cucumber? Personally, I’d prefer the grapes. In this regard, my tastes are similar to those of capuchin monkeys. And therein lies Brosnan and de Waal’s test of fairness.
What these workers did was to train the capuchin monkeys to take pebbles from them and then give them back. When a monkey gave back the pebble, it received a cucumber as a reward. The monkeys were apparently quite content with this arrangement. Then Brosnan and de Waal put two monkeys in separate cages side by side and gave each a pebble. This time, one monkey got the customary cucumber while the other monkey was rewarded with a grape. Well, this tastier reward did not go unnoticed by the cucumbered monkey. In following trials, over half the time those cucumbered wouldn’t return the pebbles or, in some cases, the offended monkeys would even go so far as to throw the cucumber back at the researcher! These monkeys knew instinctively that it wasn’t fair that the other monkey was given preferential treatment.
It was pointed out that the monkeys hadn’t read either Kant or Mill. Something in their brains told them about the unfairness and they acted accordingly. Greene would say that our own responses to moral dilemmas and questions of fairness are quite likely hard-wired in our own brains, as in our primate cousins.
Perhaps you’re wondering about the starfish. I was afraid you’d ask. Well, I put the creature on its back on the kitchen counter while I got breakfast. It seemed quite inert but later, I was startled to see that each of the arms had opened up, revealing lots of little protrusions, like little stems with polyps on the ends. And these protrusions were moving, probing around in the air, expanding and contracting. The starfish was alive. Was it crying out in pain and despair? I felt like a murderer! To return it to its habitat would have required a half hour roundtrip walk in the sun back to the shore. (One reason I walk so early in the morning, with my history of skin cancers, is to avoid sun exposure.) In the end, I opted to place the critter on our lanai in the sun. Its arms closed up and it seems to be quite dead at this point. I still feel badly, however, and will never pick up another starfish.
Allen F. Bortrum
|