Fauve Blanchard
04/04/2011
Understanding Human Morality
Advanced Evolutionary Psychology (PSYCO 403) Video Podcast Script
Introduction Title with Music
Me turning from the river to the camera, dropping my wallet & walking forward
ME: Oh hello there. Have you ever taken a moment to think about, in an entirely
evolutionary psych mind frame, about...
Someone runs up to me and hands me back my wallet
PERSON: Hey, you dropped your wallet.
ME: Wow, Thanks...Morality?
Continue to walk towards and past the camera
Me walking up the outside stairs & past the camera to go inside
ME: In social groups, there would predictably be a shared feature of the group’s behaviour
that will keep peace within the group. Morality is one example that could help maintain this group
cohesiveness. Moral behaviours are considered the actions which individuals should do based on the
moral values shared with other members of their specific social environment (Molnar-Szakacs 2011).
In humans this varies and what is considered moral tends to be defined by the culture a person is
associated with (Molnar-Szakacs 2011). But it’s kind of chilly out here; let’s go inside.
Fade to me walking to the table with coffee and sitting down
ME: So, in order to understand morality, we must remember that moral behaviours are not
always beneficial to the individual doing the moral act. Rather it is thought that these behaviours
evolved to help family members or those inclined to return the favour (de Waal 2008).
ME: Psychologist and primatologist, Dr. Frans de Waal, believes moral behaviours evolved
from empathy; the ability to share another’s emotions and feelings (de Waal 2008). Our mirror
neuron system is what allows us to feel empathy. The mirror neuron system is a network of neurons
in the brain that fire when an action is performed and when the same action is observed (MolnarSzakacs 2010). So the same neurons that fire when you are upset, fire when you observe another
upset. This system has also been proposed to be the initiator for one to behave in a way to alleviate
another’s suffering, thus performing a moral act (Molnar-Szakacs 2011). However, this does not
mean that they will respond, or that they will even feel compelled to respond, to alleviate another’s
suffering. There is a choice on if and how one will respond (Decety & Jackson 2004).
ME: Dr. Joshua Greene and his colleagues (2001) explored the mental processes that are
carried out when one is making decisions on whether to act “morally” or not. To explain their study;
I’ll present you with a hypothetical situation.
Show a drawn representation of the situation
Fauve Blanchard
04/04/2011
ME: You are at the wheel of a runaway trolley quickly approaching a fork in the tracks. On
the tracks extending to the left is a group of five railway workmen. On the tracks extending to the
right is a single railway workman. If you do nothing, the trolley will proceed to the left, causing the
deaths of the five workmen. The only way to avoid the deaths of these workmen is to hit a switch
on your dashboard that will cause the trolley to proceed to the right, causing the death of the single
workman. Is it appropriate for you to hit the switch in order to avoid the deaths of the five
workmen (Greene et al. 2001)?
Show a group of three people nodding their heads - Yes
ME? Most people respond with –Yes (Greene et al. 2001)!
Show a drawn representation of the situation
ME: Now I’ll present a different situation. Again, a runaway trolley is heading down the
tracks toward five workmen who will be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. You are
on a footbridge over the track that is between the approaching trolley and the five workmen. Next
to you, on this footbridge, there happens to be a very large stranger. The only way to save the lives
of the five workmen is to push this stranger off the bridge and onto the track below where his large
body will stop the trolley. The stranger will die if you do this, but the five workmen will be saved. Is
it appropriate for you to push the stranger onto the tracks in order to save the five workmen
(Greene et al. 2001)?
Show a group of three people shaking their heads – No
ME: Here most people will say – No (Greene et al. 2001)! But why is this?
Me sitting at the table with the coffee still
ME: Joshua Greene and his colleagues asked these, and similar dilemmas, to a group of 18
individuals. They found that areas of the brain associated with emotion, were significantly more
active when you had to physically push the person than when you only had to hit a switch.
Emotions that are more connected with these very direct and personal dilemmas would have been
responsible for the moral decisions our ancestors in the EEA (Evolutionary Era of Adaptiveness)
had to make (Greene et al., 2001). But as for more complicating dilemmas, I’ll present different
situation.
Show a drawn or cartoon representation of the situation on a white board.
ME: Enemy soldiers have taken over your village. You and some of your townspeople have
sought refuge in the cellar. Outside you hear the voices of soldiers who have come to search the
house for valuables. Your baby begins to cry loudly. You cover your baby’s mouth to block the
sound. If you remove your hand your baby’s crying will summon the attention of the soldiers who
will kill you, your baby, and the others hiding out in the cellar. If you do not, you will smother your
baby. To save yourself and the others you must smother your child. Is it appropriate for you to
smother your child in order to save yourself and the other townspeople (Greene et al. 2004)?
Fauve Blanchard
04/04/2011
Ask the same group of people – have them really question and slowly respond with different answers
Me sitting at the table still drinking coffee & at the end walk away
ME: Joshua Greene and colleagues (2004) presented these three previously mentioned
dilemmas and more to 41 healthy undergraduates. In the dilemmas similar to the crying baby
dilemma, they found high levels of activity is specific areas of the brain associated with abstract
reasoning, cognitive control and cognitive conflict and in the same emotionally associated areas as
before. He speculated that humans have the ability to use both “cognitive” and emotional processes,
often in competitive roles, to resolve difficult personal moral dilemmas (Greene et al. 2004). So, if
the more cognitive areas of the person’s brain were relatively more activated, the individual would
approve of the moral violation, which is in this case –yes- smothering the baby. If the emotionally
driven areas were relatively more activated, then people would most often disagree with the moral
violation - to not smothering the baby.
ME: So, emotional responses in one part of the human brain can help one to decide ones
appropriate action and can drive one to disprove a moral violation (Greene et al. 2001). But our
“cognitive” ability can actually add logic to our decisions and override these emotional responses.
This can lead us to favour the moral violation, when the benefits outweigh the costs (Greene et
al.204). Our ancestors that could incorporate both emotional and cognitive processes in making the
most beneficial decisions, would have, through direct or inclusive fitness, reciprocal agreements or
just increased group cohesiveness, have an increased differential success.
ME: Well, I hope this exploration of human morality was enlightening. And perhaps the
next time you’re in a moral dilemma, you think about not only your decision, but the reasons for
your decision.
Get up from the table with coffee & Fade into Conclusion Scene with Music
Special Thanks for Assisted Actors:
Niki Zucchet
Adam Hope
Ben Furman
Fauve Blanchard
04/04/2011
Sources Discussed in Podcast
de Waal, F. B. M. (2008). Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy.
Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 279.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004).The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and
cognitive neuroscience reviews, 3, 71-100.
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases
of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 2, 389-400.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). REPORTS An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science, 293, 55372105.
Molnar-Szakacs, I. 2011. From actions to empathy and morality – A neural perspective. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 7, 76-85.
More to Explore
Radiolab Podcast on Morality:
Abumrad, J., & Krulwich, R. (Producers). (2006). Morality. WNYC’s Radiolab [Audio Podcast].
Retrieved from http://www.radiolab.org/
Neurological Understanding of Morality
Narvaez, D., & Vaydich, J. L. (2008). Moral development and behaviour under the spotlight of the
neurobiological sciences. Journal of Moral Education, 37, 289-312.
More on the Mirror Neuron System
Barry, A. Mirror Neurons: How we become what we see. Visual Communication Quarterly, 16, 79-89.
Morality found in Animals:
Bekodd, M., & Pierce, J. (2009). Wild justice: The moral lives of animals. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press
Brosnan, S. F., & Beran, M. J. (2009). Trading behaviour between conspecifics in chimpanzees, Pan
troglodytes. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123, 181-194.
Hauser, M. D. (2000). Morals, Apes, and Us When Binti the gorilla rescued a small boy who fell into
her enclosure at a Chicago zoo, did she know she was doing a good deed? Can animals learn
to share, cooperate, and punish? Discover New York- , 21, 50-55.
Masserman, J. H., Wechkin, S., & Terris, W. (1964). “Altruistic” BEHAVIOR IN RHESUS
MONKEYS. The Ameican Journal of Psychiatry, 121, 584-5.