If you click on the link above you will go to a very interesting article which, in addition to discussing some moral/ethical scenarios, presents evidence of how brain functionality and moral precepts may be related. It shows how a Utilitarian is more dispassionate than say a Kantian. If we reach a point in our research where we can map the brain areas to emotions and moral views what will we do with this information? Will this negate the idea of free will and leave us with a bleak determinism?
Personally, I like the mystical view that we don't stop at our skins and are connected to everything else in the universe. And of course so is everything else so that we are all one flowing, unfolding thing. If one adopts this premise then the question of free will vs. determinism is not even a valid question anymore because that question only makes sense if everything is separate and has a separate will. Of course we think therefore we think we are separate and this leads us to questions like: do we have free will? Makes me think we shouldn't be spending quite so much time thinking so much and instead emulate the great god Nike who spake thus: "Just do it."
More importantly will this convoluted and rambling post get me kicked out of this blog?
Stu
3 comments:
Stu, thanks for posting the link to the Scientific American story, and for your comments on it.
I am (among other things) a strict utilitarian, so I am concerned that, according to the story you linked to, people with damage to their prefrontal cortex tend towards utilitarianism! Does that mean me and my fellow utilitarians suffer from brain damage and are therefore less than human?
It might seem so. We tend to, in the words of the story "...favor the aggregate welfare over the welfare of fewer individuals."
Just today, while reading a compilation of the letters of Richard Feynman, a famous physicist who had a key role in the development of the US atom bomb, I came across his crisp answer to a British schoolboy on why he did that work "knowing the consequences."
Feynman's answer seems to me a classic utilitarian one: "I did work on the atomic bomb. My major reason was concern that the Nazi's would make it first and conquer the world."
Einstein's key role in convincing President Roosevelt to commit to the development of the bomb had similar motivation, despite Einstein's long hisory of pacificism.
Never-the-less, are we utilitarians brain damaged as were the subjects of the study reported on by Scientific American? I don't think so.
The study was based on data from only six subjects, which hardly qualifies the results as statistically significant scientific evidence! I don't believe you can make very good judgements about differences between "normal" brains by studying people with damaged brains.
Also, the "high-conflict" scenarios, which were the ones where the brain damaged subjects were most "utilitarian", are quite extreme and totally unrealistic.
For example, one asks you to imagine that you see a trolley car coming towards you that is totally out of control. You and those near you can jump out of the way and save yourselves, but a crowd of people down the hill will certainly be killed if someone does not stop the trolley car. You notice a fat person nearby and calculate that, if you push him onto the tracks, his body will stop the trolley car and save all those people down the hill.
The "cold-blooded" "utilitarian" calculation is that the life of that fat person should be sacrificed for the many more lives of the people down the hill. (None of the people are related to you and all, including the fat person, are totally innocent, etc.)
Stu asks: "If we reach a point in our research where we can map the brain areas to emotions and moral views what will we do with this information? Will this negate the idea of free will and leave us with a bleak determinism?"
IMHO, NO! Of course, as I have said before, the way I understand free will is quite clearly logical, unlike the confused concepts of most other people. Correctly understood, free will is the unfettered operation of the human brain. Just because some scientist can accurately predict your future actions does not in any way diminish your free will. On the contrary, if all the details of the situation and your brain state are known, and an accurate prediction cannot be made (due to cosmic rays, etc.), then you do not have free will!
Ira Glickstein
Ira said: “I am (among other things) a strict utilitarian.” I wonder, but before addressing that point, my reading of the article did not say or even imply that utilitarians are brain damaged rather that people with damage to their prefrontal cortex tend towards utilitarianism a completely different view. If some a’s are b does not mean that all b’s are a’s.
Back to Ira’s avow that he is a strict utilitarian, the examples presented do not discuss more personal relations. Would push your wife in front of the trolley? I would guess that you might hesitate and probably miss the opportunity. Would you jump in front of the trolley, again I guess not. Abstract utilitarianism is fine and I respect Feynman and Einstein because they had to reconcile their pacificism for the greater good.
Post WWII, when discussing the dangers of the USSR, a common expression was “better Red than dead”. I was in service in Germany with my family at the time. There was considerable risk to both myself and family. We felt that the risk, potential death or capture, could be tolerated to keep the family together and serve to protect our country. Was this decision utilitarian, for the greater good of the free nations? Partially but not completely, because patriotism ranked high amongst the young adults at the time while personal factors also played in the decision making. If my family had chosen not to stay with me in Germany my decision might have changed. Can two people together make a strict utilitarian decision and did we make that decision?
Ira said,” Of course, as I have said before, the way I understand free will is quite clearly logical, unlike the confused concepts of most other people. Correctly understood, free will is the unfettered operation of the human brain. Just because some scientist can accurately predict your future actions does not in any way diminish your free will. On the contrary, if all the details of the situation and your brain state are known, and an accurate prediction cannot be made (due to cosmic rays, etc.), then you do not have free will!”.
I guess that I am amongst the confused people. To phrase it for the simple are you saying? If you can predict accurately my forthcoming action but I don’t know of your prediction then I am exercising free will? I can agree with that I think. If you tell me of your prediction then I cannot exercise free will and disobey your prediction, or can I? Also your last sentence throws me. Again for the simple, you say, if all the details of the situation and your brain state are known, and an accurate prediction cannot be made (due to cosmic rays, etc., i.e., factors that can never be known), then a prediction can never be accurately made thus you do not have free will!”. Here again I am lost, sticking to science and not the metaphysical, free will is a factor of the brain. I have free will because within my brain I can weigh the pros and cons of an action and freely choose. My choice may not be your choice because the data retained within my brain is different than retained in yours.
You make a good logical point: "If some a’s are b does not mean that all b’s are a’s."
According to the rules of logic, that is absolutely true. Just because brain-damaged subjects of a certain type tend to be utilitarian does not entail that ALL utilitaians are brain-damaged. (I may be the exception :^)
On the other hand, if empirical evidence suggests that all a's that have been examined are b's, that may be taken as evidence to support a conjecture that many, and perhaps all b's are a's.
The Larry Craig and Mark Foley revelations of prominent "family values" Republicans turning out to be hypocrites, has lead many liberal commentators to conclude that many Red-State Republicans who are the loudest at denouncing homosexuals are, in fact, secret homosexuals themselves! Even though the sample size is small, it does appear that "outed" gays tend to be "anti-gay" Republicans. On the other hand, since being "pro-gay" is an advantage in many Blue-States, gay Democrats don't have to keep their sexual preferences secret and so cannot be "outed".
As to the level of my utilitarianism: No, I would not push one of my relatives or friends in front of that trolley -- or jump in myself -- to save lots of lives. I am not that much of an idealist.
On the other hand, your service in the military, and that of current service members (now all volunteers) is a great example of personal-sacrifice utilitarianism. Your family's choice to join you in Germany was a sacrifice on their part as well, but balanced by the advantage of being together.
Sorry you are "confused" on the issue of free will, or at least my interpretation of it. (If you are NOT confused you have not been paying attention :^)
Perhaps it is I -- in the minority on this issue -- who am confused!
I would like someone (perhaps Howard) to explain in simple terms I can understand, why random effects, such as cosmic rays and Heisenberg uncertainty regarding decay of radioactive materials, and what Joel called "noise" in our brains have anything at all to do with free will.
Ira Glickstein
Post a Comment