Thinking Clearly About Morality

The definition of morality  has, for many people, been thrown into question. In today’s secular world which is no longer guided by religious leaders, texts or even personal interpretations of faith, on what basis should we delineate moral guidelines? What society construes as ‘moral’ has indisputably varied widely with culture and era, and while  neuroscience is undeniably elucidating the roots of our behaviour, what it can teach us about how we should behave is doubtful. 

Morality is largely normative; in contrast to the empiri- cally-derived facts of science. A guiding role for neuroscience would therefore mistakenly conflate empirical facts with normative values.  Science has shown that certain so-called ‘moral’ concepts – such as reciprocity, altruism and fair- ness – are key elements in the societies of social organisms, particularly our own. That many animal species lead soli- tary lives highlights the costs to living in a group - greater competition for food or exposure to infectious disease, for instance. But many of the advantages of sociality can be attributed to so-called reciprocal ‘moral’ behaviour, and can  tip the scales in favour of sociality over solitariness.

Evidence points to such moral behaviour as being sanc- tioned by the brain and its internal reward system.   The neurotransmitter oxytocin, involved in social bonding, has been proclaimed ‘the love hormone’ and is linked to ma- ternal and even sexual behaviour. A Claremont Graduate University study gave either oxytocin or a placebo to two groups of subjects. Both groups were then asked to under- take a blinded, one-shot decision on how to split a sum of money with a stranger; those who had received oxytocin were 80% more generous than those in the placebo group. Similarly, UCLA researchers showed that differing levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin affects perceptions of fairness. 

Other studies have linked morality to actual regions of the brain. Fehr of the University of Zurich confronted test subjects with unfair monetary offers. Disrupting activity in the brain’s frontal lobe (the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) made subjects less likely to reject unfair offers, although they still perceived said offers as unjust. While it is unclear whether this particular region of the brain is involved in self-interest or judging reciprocal fairness, studies such as these indicate the brain’s close association with not just moral concepts but also the actual expression of moral behaviour.  Understanding the neurological basis of morality helps us to recognise our predispositions to think and behave in certain ways; that moral perception, judgment and be- haviour have neurobiological bases perhaps indicates that man is equipped with biologically hardwired heuristics for community-living. However, the moral choice is but one of many options and research statistical rather than deterministic. Capacity for morality does not mean that an individual will necessarily behave morally in all situa- tions, and here the over- simplistic dichotomy of limitless behavioural malleability versus biological determinism only limits the discussion. While neuroscience can help us reach a better under- standing of ourselves, it fails to provide us with rules for the treatment of others, much less for the governance of our societies. However, important insights into the basis for decision making are being made and furthermore we may now be approaching a revision of our expectations for a moral being in today’s uncertain era.  Mingjuan Tan is currently studying Biological Antropology at the Peterhouse College.