Neuroscience and Morality Science shows that everyone has moral centers in the brain and solar plexus that give an immediate sense of right and wrong when faced with a choice.
A moral “feeling,” which seems to be related to the brain’s prefrontal cortex and amygdala, takes the recognition that an act is immoral and can translate that recognition into behavioral inhibition. This is a “gut feeling” because it involves both the brain and the nervous system which has its own “brain” or convergence of nerves in the solar plexus, known as the “abdominal brain.”
The brain seeks well-being and avoids harm. The moral feeling it generates is biologically based, but can be influenced by education and cultural conditioning. The brain is changeable and can learn to recognize something as immoral which it previously perceived as moral, and vice versa. But attempts to condition the brain to accept anti-compassionate, unnatural acts such as aggressive injuring and killing (not to be confused with violence used in self-defense) do not permanently change the brain, but rather traumatize it. The brain reacts to such trauma through manifesting such disorders as PTSD and schizophrenia. See http://nonkilling.org/center/
Is morality a matter of one's intention, or rather of the outcome of one's acts? “What determines moral blame is not how bad the outcome is, but mostly what was going on in the minds of the actors,” according to one neuroscientist. This is also the conclusion of many philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, and many religious thinkers. Intention, not outcome, determines morality.
Reason, revenge and ridicule The animal brain is oriented to well-being and self-preservation. Animals do not indulge in some behaviors which humans justify as moral, such as revenge and ridicule, which are not related to self-preservation or well-being. Are animals in some ways more intelligent than humans?
All religions relate morality to compassion and empathy. So have most philosophers through history, and neuroscience seems to back this up. Compassion and empathy increase well-being. To continue to survive and evolve into thriving, we as a species need to develop these positive emotions. Revenge and ridicule are two widespread responses that go against compassion and empathy. They are used to justify violence and even terrorism.
Revenge is not the same as self-preservation; it is a calculated response and not a spontaneous one. As humanity has grown to realize that we can and should provide material well-being for all persons, revenge (“payback” or the “pre-emptive attack”) is being perceived more and more as immoral. It is designed to hurt aggressively.
Ridicule depicts its targets as inferior. It is a way of attacking them non-physically, usually without actual confrontation. It is not a logical critique but an irrational personal attack. Ridicule shows moral avoidance and perhaps even cowardice. Like revenge, it is opposed to compassion and empathy.
Unfortunately, revenge and ridicule are deeply woven into the fabric of most societies, because vengeance and mockery support the social status quo. Those who value their integrity and morality face a real challenge in countering them. For example, aspects of the criminal justice system are based on revenge, retribution or “payback,” and those who would rather not participate in vengeance can be seen as anti-social. In day-to-day society, those who won’t indulge in mockery or gossip may become unpopular. However, such people are building a better society through having clear consciences, and through teaching their peers and their children through example.
So a simple rule of thumb is that if something feels wrong, it probably is. A moment of reflection can show whether or not an action would go against compassion and empathy. If it would, you're likely to have a gut feeling about it.
Your gut knows that doing something wrong diminishes you and makes you less of a person. Socrates stated that harming another harms you more than it harms them. Christianity and Buddhism and other religions agree. ####
Neuroscience and Morality
Science shows that everyone has moral centers in the brain and solar plexus that give an immediate sense of right and wrong when faced with a choice.
A moral “feeling,” which seems to be related to the brain’s prefrontal cortex and amygdala, takes the recognition that an act is immoral and can translate that recognition into behavioral inhibition. This is a “gut feeling” because it involves both the brain and the nervous system which has its own “brain” or convergence of nerves in the solar plexus, known as the “abdominal brain.”
The brain seeks well-being and avoids harm. The moral feeling it generates is biologically based, but can be influenced by education and cultural conditioning. The brain is changeable and can learn to recognize something as immoral which it previously perceived as moral, and vice versa. But attempts to condition the brain to accept anti-compassionate, unnatural acts such as aggressive injuring and killing (not to be confused with violence used in self-defense) do not permanently change the brain, but rather traumatize it. The brain reacts to such trauma through manifesting such disorders as PTSD and schizophrenia. See http://nonkilling.org/center/
Is morality a matter of one's intention, or rather of the outcome of one's acts? “What determines moral blame is not how bad the outcome is, but mostly what was going on in the minds of the actors,” according to one neuroscientist. This is also the conclusion of many philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, and many religious thinkers. Intention, not outcome, determines morality.
Reason, revenge and ridicule
The animal brain is oriented to well-being and self-preservation. Animals do not indulge in some behaviors which humans justify as moral, such as revenge and ridicule, which are not related to self-preservation or well-being. Are animals in some ways more intelligent than humans?
All religions relate morality to compassion and empathy. So have most philosophers through history, and neuroscience seems to back this up. Compassion and empathy increase well-being. To continue to survive and evolve into thriving, we as a species need to develop these positive emotions. Revenge and ridicule are two widespread responses that go against compassion and empathy. They are used to justify violence and even terrorism.
Revenge is not the same as self-preservation; it is a calculated response and not a spontaneous one. As humanity has grown to realize that we can and should provide material well-being for all persons, revenge (“payback” or the “pre-emptive attack”) is being perceived more and more as immoral. It is designed to hurt aggressively.
Ridicule depicts its targets as inferior. It is a way of attacking them non-physically, usually without actual confrontation. It is not a logical critique but an irrational personal attack. Ridicule shows moral avoidance and perhaps even cowardice. Like revenge, it is opposed to compassion and empathy.
Unfortunately, revenge and ridicule are deeply woven into the fabric of most societies, because vengeance and mockery support the social status quo. Those who value their integrity and morality face a real challenge in countering them. For example, aspects of the criminal justice system are based on revenge, retribution or “payback,” and those who would rather not participate in vengeance can be seen as anti-social. In day-to-day society, those who won’t indulge in mockery or gossip may become unpopular. However, such people are building a better society through having clear consciences, and through teaching their peers and their children through example.
So a simple rule of thumb is that if something feels wrong, it probably is. A moment of reflection can show whether or not an action would go against compassion and empathy. If it would, you're likely to have a gut feeling about it.
Your gut knows that doing something wrong diminishes you and makes you less of a person. Socrates stated that harming another harms you more than it harms them. Christianity and Buddhism and other religions agree. ####