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

Jun 09, 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: Unsteady on your feet? Little touches could make all the difference

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Rich boys more competitive in economic experiments

Jul 04, 2014

Why do we make the choices that we do? Are we born this way or have we become this way? The behavioural economists are looking for answers by the use of economic and math exercises in the laboratory.

Appraising the peer-review process

Jun 02, 2014

Most academic papers today are published only after some academic peers have had a chance to review the merits and limitations of the work. This seems like a good idea, but there is a growing movement that ...

Renting isn't lending: The 'sharing economy' fallacy

May 28, 2014

The "sharing economy" seems to be everywhere at the moment. The Economist, the Financial Times and many others have all waxed lyrical about the social significance of using sites such as Airbnb or Uber to collaborate ...

What sociology can tell us about the G.M. scandal

May 28, 2014

In recent months, General Motors has received scathing criticism for its handling of a design flaw affecting multiple Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn models produced over several years. At issue is a faulty ...

Recommended for you

Neutralising antibodies for safer organ transplants

9 hours ago

Serious complications can arise following kidney transplants. If dialysis is required within the first seven days, then the transplanted organ is said to have a Delayed Graft Function (DGF), and essentially ...

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mercury_01
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!"
Sowdi
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?
mrlewish
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".
x646d63
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.
darrach
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.
slash
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.
Sowdi
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.