Who shalt not kill? Brain power leads to level-headedness when faced with moral dilemmas

June 9, 2008

Should a sergeant sacrifice a wounded private on the battlefield in order to save the rest of his troops? Is euthanasia acceptable if it prevents needless suffering? Many of us will have to face some sort of extreme moral choice such as these at least once in our life.

And we are also surrounded by less dramatic moral choices everyday: Do I buy the hybrid? Do I vote for a particular presidential candidate? Unfortunately, very little is known beyond philosophical speculation about how people understand morality and make decisions on moral issues.

Past research suggests that moral dilemmas can evoke strong emotions in people and tend to override thoughtful deliberation and reasoning. However, more recent neuroimaging research has discovered that sometimes people are capable of voluntarily suppressing these emotional reactions, allowing for decisions based on reasoning and careful deliberation of the consequences of one's actions.

A new study appearing in the June issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, appears to support this neuroimaging evidence. Adam Moore of Princeton University and his colleagues Brian Clark and Michael Kane of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro tested this notion by measuring individuals' working memory capacity -- essentially their ability to mentally juggle multiple pieces of information. The idea was that people who could best juggle information would be able to control their emotion and engage in "deliberative processing."

The researchers then asked participants to make decisions in emotionally provocative situations. One example:

"A runaway trolley hurtles toward five unaware workmen; the only way to save them is to push a heavy man (standing nearby on a footbridge) onto the track where he will die in stopping the trolley."

In these emotion laden scenarios, people with high working memory capacity were not only more consistent in their judgments but their answers indicated that they were considering the consequences of their choices in a way that the other participants were not.

"This suggests that emotional reactions to moral issues can drive our judgments and motivate action but can also blind us to the consequences of our decisions in some cases," write the authors. Ultimately, people with higher working memory can be relied upon to make more consistent decisions and are able to more deeply consider consequences in these highly charged instances.

Source: Association for Psychological Science

Explore further: Opinion: Like it or not, morality dictates that we wean ourselves off coal

Related Stories

Does religion make kids less generous?

November 5, 2015

Religious parents are more likely to describe their children as empathetic and concerned about justice than are non-religious parents. But, new evidence reported in the Cell Press journal Current Biology on November 5 suggests ...

Teaching robots right from wrong

May 9, 2014

Researchers from Tufts University, Brown University, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute are teaming with the U.S. Navy to explore technology that would pave the way for developing robots capable of making moral decisions.

Sleep deprivation affects moral judgment

March 1, 2007

Research has shown that bad sleep can adversely affect a person's physical health and emotional well-being. However, the amount of sleep one gets can also influence his or her decision-making. A study published in the March ...

Recommended for you

How the finch changes its tune

August 3, 2015

Like top musicians, songbirds train from a young age to weed out errors and trim variability from their songs, ultimately becoming consistent and reliable performers. But as with human musicians, even the best are not machines. ...

Machine Translates Thoughts into Speech in Real Time

December 21, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- By implanting an electrode into the brain of a person with locked-in syndrome, scientists have demonstrated how to wirelessly transmit neural signals to a speech synthesizer. The "thought-to-speech" process ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

4 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2008
What if the large guy doesnt fall in front of the trolley, or even worse, doesnt get killed. Theyd have me for murder! Why not just go with the classic "HEY, WATCH OUT!"
not rated yet Jun 09, 2008
If you have to actually push the guy off of the bridge why not jump yourself? What gives you the right to live in place of the large man?
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2008
That was not an option in the question. Apparently someone here is low functioning. Of course you fat guy gets it. Notice the problem said "the only way".
not rated yet Jun 09, 2008
There is only one scenario where pushing the fat guy onto the tracks would be acceptable: if he was responsible for the runaway trolley, and his actions were deliberate.

Murdering someone to save five people from being accidentally killed is unacceptable.

Murder is a choice, watching five people get killed is unlucky. Choosing to kill is much worse than being unlucky.
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2008
This is Frances Kamm's 'Principle of Permissible Harm'
In this case Kamm would say the act was wrong because we commited a wrong act (ie, murdered the heavy man) so it is wrong whatever the ultimate outcome.
On the other hand, it would have been ok, had we diverted the trolley (and still killed the heavy man) because in this case our original action was intended to do good and therefore correct.

Reference with Kant and Deontological ethics.
not rated yet Jun 10, 2008
In his science fiction novel, 'Ring World', Larry Niven presents a very similar problem: do nothing and permit the incredibly huge 'Ringworld' to be destroyed by an imminent catastrophe, or activate a 'mechanism' that would push it out of harm's way, but immediately kill hundreds of millions of people (well, kind of) in the process.

It's a bit more involved than that, but apart from several orders of magnitude it is so similar to the above example I thought I should mention it.
not rated yet Jun 14, 2008
That was not an option in the question. Apparently someone here is low functioning. Of course you fat guy gets it. Notice the problem said "the only way".

Well okay but I still couldn't kill a person to save others. It goes against my morals, even considering that not helping the five men when given the ability to do so could in itself make me their killers in a way. I rather would be blamed for not saving them than kill a man directly.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.