|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Finally, an Explanation for Mountain Bikers' Utter Lack of Morality!
Obviously, they lack feeling for wildlife and other trail users!
Mike http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/.../05-brain.html Unfeeling moral choices traced to damaged frontal lobes By Steve Bradt FAS Communications Consider the following scenario: Someone you know has AIDS and plans to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let it happen or to kill the person. Do you pull the trigger? Most people waver or say they could not, even if they agree that in theory they should. But according to a new study in the journal Nature, subjects with damage to a part of the frontal lobe make a less personal calculation. The logical choice, they say, is to sacrifice one life to save many. Conducted by researchers at Harvard University, the University of Southern California (USC), the California Institute of Technology, and the University of Iowa, the study shows that emotion plays an important role in scenarios that pose a moral dilemma. If certain emotions are blocked, we make decisions that — right or wrong — seem unnaturally cold. The scenarios in the study are extreme, but the core dilemma is not: Should one confront a co-worker, challenge a neighbor, or scold a loved one in the interest of the greater good? "Our work provides the first causal account of the role of emotions in moral judgments," says co-senior author Marc Hauser, professor of psychology at Harvard and Harvard College Professor. But, Hauser adds, not all moral reasoning depends so strongly on emotion. "What is absolutely astonishing about our results is how selective the deficit is," he says. "Damage to the frontal lobe leaves intact a suite of moral problem-solving abilities, but damages judgments in which an aversive action is put into direct conflict with a strong utilitarian outcome." A total of 30 subjects of both genders faced a set of scenarios pitting immediate harm to one person against future certain harm to many. Six had damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a small region behind the forehead, while 12 had brain damage elsewhere, and another 12 had no damage. The subjects with VMPC damage stood out in their stated willingness to harm an individual — a prospect that usually generates strong aversion. "Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in real life. They seem to lack empathy and compassion," says Ralph Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Caltech. "In those circumstances most people without this specific brain damage will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that conflict," says co-senior author Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute and holder of the David Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience at USC. It is the feeling of aversion that normally blocks humans from harming each other. Damasio describes it as "a combination of rejection of the act, but combined with the social emotion of compassion for that particular person." "The question is, are the social emotions necessary to make these moral judgments," Adolphs says. Their study's answer may inform a classic philosophical debate on whether humans make moral judgments based on norms and societal rules, or based on their emotions. The study holds another implication for philosophy: By showing that humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, the study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different philosophies for compatibility with human nature. The Nature study expands on work on emotion and decision making Damasio started in the early 1990s, which caught the public eye in his first book, "Descartes' Error." Hauser, whose behavioral work in animals has attempted to identify precursors to moral behavior, then teamed up with Damasio's group to extend those observations. Other authors on the study are Fiery Cushman and Liane Young of Harvard and Michael Koenigs and Daniel Tranel of the University of Iowa. Funding for the research came from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Finally, an Explanation for Mountain Bikers' Utter Lack of Morality!
The only one here that has a factual demonstrated lack of morality is you,
Michael. And, according to the article YOU published, you should petition to have your frontal lobes reattached. Clearly, you are able to stand behind people that are willing to maim and kill others for your cause. You and they share a similar hatred for those that ride bikes, and you have been known to support stringing wires across a trail that would seriously harm a human. You have posted stories here that "prove" your position relative to the dangers of bike riders, but those stories have nothing at all to do with riding a bike. Yes, my friend, you need your frontal lobes back. Your morality is seriously in question here. (Personally, I don't think returing your lobes would improve your moral stature, but it couldn't hurt.) "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... Obviously, they lack feeling for wildlife and other trail users! Mike http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/.../05-brain.html Unfeeling moral choices traced to damaged frontal lobes By Steve Bradt FAS Communications Consider the following scenario: Someone you know has AIDS and plans to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let it happen or to kill the person. Do you pull the trigger? Most people waver or say they could not, even if they agree that in theory they should. But according to a new study in the journal Nature, subjects with damage to a part of the frontal lobe make a less personal calculation. The logical choice, they say, is to sacrifice one life to save many. Conducted by researchers at Harvard University, the University of Southern California (USC), the California Institute of Technology, and the University of Iowa, the study shows that emotion plays an important role in scenarios that pose a moral dilemma. If certain emotions are blocked, we make decisions that - right or wrong - seem unnaturally cold. The scenarios in the study are extreme, but the core dilemma is not: Should one confront a co-worker, challenge a neighbor, or scold a loved one in the interest of the greater good? "Our work provides the first causal account of the role of emotions in moral judgments," says co-senior author Marc Hauser, professor of psychology at Harvard and Harvard College Professor. But, Hauser adds, not all moral reasoning depends so strongly on emotion. "What is absolutely astonishing about our results is how selective the deficit is," he says. "Damage to the frontal lobe leaves intact a suite of moral problem-solving abilities, but damages judgments in which an aversive action is put into direct conflict with a strong utilitarian outcome." A total of 30 subjects of both genders faced a set of scenarios pitting immediate harm to one person against future certain harm to many. Six had damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a small region behind the forehead, while 12 had brain damage elsewhere, and another 12 had no damage. The subjects with VMPC damage stood out in their stated willingness to harm an individual - a prospect that usually generates strong aversion. "Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in real life. They seem to lack empathy and compassion," says Ralph Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Caltech. "In those circumstances most people without this specific brain damage will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that conflict," says co-senior author Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute and holder of the David Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience at USC. It is the feeling of aversion that normally blocks humans from harming each other. Damasio describes it as "a combination of rejection of the act, but combined with the social emotion of compassion for that particular person." "The question is, are the social emotions necessary to make these moral judgments," Adolphs says. Their study's answer may inform a classic philosophical debate on whether humans make moral judgments based on norms and societal rules, or based on their emotions. The study holds another implication for philosophy: By showing that humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, the study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different philosophies for compatibility with human nature. The Nature study expands on work on emotion and decision making Damasio started in the early 1990s, which caught the public eye in his first book, "Descartes' Error." Hauser, whose behavioral work in animals has attempted to identify precursors to moral behavior, then teamed up with Damasio's group to extend those observations. Other authors on the study are Fiery Cushman and Liane Young of Harvard and Michael Koenigs and Daniel Tranel of the University of Iowa. Funding for the research came from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
.
..
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
.
..
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Finally, an Explanation for Mountain Bikers' Utter Lack of Morality!
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:46:38 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote: The only one here that has a factual demonstrated lack of morality is you, Michael. And, according to the article YOU published, you should petition to have your frontal lobes reattached. Clearly, you are able to stand behind people that are willing to maim and kill others for your cause. You and they share a similar hatred for those that ride bikes, and you have been known to support stringing wires across a trail that would seriously harm a human. You have posted stories here that "prove" your position relative to the dangers of bike riders, but those stories have nothing at all to do with riding a bike. Yes, my friend, you need your frontal lobes back. Your morality is seriously in question here. (Personally, I don't think returing your lobes would improve your moral stature, but it couldn't hurt.) "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . Obviously, they lack feeling for wildlife and other trail users! Mike http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/.../05-brain.html Unfeeling moral choices traced to damaged frontal lobes By Steve Bradt FAS Communications Consider the following scenario: Someone you know has AIDS and plans to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let it happen or to kill the person. Do you pull the trigger? Most people waver or say they could not, even if they agree that in theory they should. But according to a new study in the journal Nature, subjects with damage to a part of the frontal lobe make a less personal calculation. The logical choice, they say, is to sacrifice one life to save many. Conducted by researchers at Harvard University, the University of Southern California (USC), the California Institute of Technology, and the University of Iowa, the study shows that emotion plays an important role in scenarios that pose a moral dilemma. If certain emotions are blocked, we make decisions that - right or wrong - seem unnaturally cold. The scenarios in the study are extreme, but the core dilemma is not: Should one confront a co-worker, challenge a neighbor, or scold a loved one in the interest of the greater good? "Our work provides the first causal account of the role of emotions in moral judgments," says co-senior author Marc Hauser, professor of psychology at Harvard and Harvard College Professor. But, Hauser adds, not all moral reasoning depends so strongly on emotion. "What is absolutely astonishing about our results is how selective the deficit is," he says. "Damage to the frontal lobe leaves intact a suite of moral problem-solving abilities, but damages judgments in which an aversive action is put into direct conflict with a strong utilitarian outcome." A total of 30 subjects of both genders faced a set of scenarios pitting immediate harm to one person against future certain harm to many. Six had damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a small region behind the forehead, while 12 had brain damage elsewhere, and another 12 had no damage. The subjects with VMPC damage stood out in their stated willingness to harm an individual - a prospect that usually generates strong aversion. "Because of their brain damage, they have abnormal social emotions in real life. They seem to lack empathy and compassion," says Ralph Adolphs, Bren Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Caltech. "In those circumstances most people without this specific brain damage will be torn. But these particular subjects seem to lack that conflict," says co-senior author Antonio Damasio, director of the Brain and Creativity Institute and holder of the David Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience at USC. It is the feeling of aversion that normally blocks humans from harming each other. Damasio describes it as "a combination of rejection of the act, but combined with the social emotion of compassion for that particular person." "The question is, are the social emotions necessary to make these moral judgments," Adolphs says. Their study's answer may inform a classic philosophical debate on whether humans make moral judgments based on norms and societal rules, or based on their emotions. The study holds another implication for philosophy: By showing that humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, the study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different philosophies for compatibility with human nature. The Nature study expands on work on emotion and decision making Damasio started in the early 1990s, which caught the public eye in his first book, "Descartes' Error." Hauser, whose behavioral work in animals has attempted to identify precursors to moral behavior, then teamed up with Damasio's group to extend those observations. Other authors on the study are Fiery Cushman and Liane Young of Harvard and Michael Koenigs and Daniel Tranel of the University of Iowa. Funding for the research came from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande Did you say something? === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
..
...
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mountain Biker Gives Driver the Finger, Then Wonders Why People Hate Mountain Bikers! | Mr_Kingkillaha | Mountain Biking | 3 | January 27th 05 04:20 AM |
A Majority of Mountain Bikers Break the Law (was Inconsiderate bikers) | Gary S. | Social Issues | 0 | August 6th 04 05:28 PM |
A Majority of Mountain Bikers Break the Law (was Inconsiderate bikers) | Gary S. | Social Issues | 0 | August 6th 04 05:27 PM |
Another Typical Mountain Biker Demonstrates Their Utter Ignorance of Basic Biology | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 4 | April 16th 04 05:56 PM |
Another Typical Mountain Biker Demonstrates Their Utter Ignorance of Basic Biology | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 4 | April 16th 04 05:56 PM |