Print
Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation
by Science Daily
Thanks to Amy Karls for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm
Science Daily — Functional MRI scans have revealed a "biologically embedded" basis for altruistic behavior, with several characteristic regions of the brain being activated when players of a game called "Prisoner's Dilemma" decide to trust each other and cooperate, rather than betray each other for immediate gain, say researchers from Emory University. They report on their study in the July 18 issue of the journal Neuron, published by Cell Press.
For many years, evolutionary biologists, behaviorists, economists and political scientists have attempted to understand why cooperation exists between human beings, even though that cooperation may not result in a direct or immediate reward. This unselfish behavior called "altruism" is almost uniquely a human trait.
Up until now, almost all brain imaging experiments that have studied the social brain have done so by exposing subjects to static 2-D images inside the scanner. "This study represents an attempt to learn about the social brain by scanning people as they are engaged in a true social interaction," said James K. Rilling, Ph.D., principal investigator in the Emory study, who is currently serving a postdoctoral fellowship at Princeton University. In the Fall of 2003, Dr. Rilling will return to Emory as a faculty member with a joint appointment in the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (CBN) at Emory University School of Medicine and the Emory University Department of Anthroplogy.
In two separate experiments, the researchers used fMRI to scan the brains of 36 women while they played the "Prisoner's Dilemma Game," a decades-old model for cooperation based on reciprocal altruism. Two players independently chose to either cooperate with each other or not (defect), and each was awarded a sum of money that depended upon the interaction of both players' choices in that round.
In the first experiment, 19 subjects were scanned in four game sessions designed to observe neural function during cooperation and non-cooperation during both human interactions (social) and interactions with a computer (non-social). The results of the first experiment revealed different patterns of neural activation depending on whether the playing partner was identified as a human or a computer. In the second experiment, 17 subjects were scanned during three game sessions, focusing specifically on human interaction.
Mutual cooperation was the most common outcome in games played with presumed human partners in both experiments, even though a player was maximally rewarded for defecting when the other player cooperated. During the mutually cooperative social interactions, activation was noted in those areas of the brain that are linked to reward processing: the nucleus accumbens, the caudate nucleus, ventromedial frontal/orbitofrontal cortex and rostral anterior cingulate cortex.
"Our study shows, for the first time, that social cooperation is intrinsically rewarding to the human brain, even in the face of pressures to the contrary, " said Gregory S. Berns, M.D., Ph.D., co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry in the Emory University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and member of the CBN. "It suggests that the altruistic drive to cooperate is biologically embedded-- either genetically programmed or acquired through socialization during childhood and adolescence."
"Reciprocal altruism activates a reward circuit, and this activation may often be sufficiently reinforcing to override subsequent temptations to accept but not reciprocate altruism. This may be what motivates us to persist with cooperative social interactions and reap the benefits of sustained mutual cooperation," said Dr. Rilling.
"The combination of game behavior and functional brain imaging also provides a unique paradigm to explore the neural basis of social behavioral disorders such as autism, drug addiction and sociopathy, that are characterized by deficits in social reciprocity, impulse regulation, or social reward processing," adds Clint Kilts, Ph.D., co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry at Emory. "It defines the most complex form of the human genesis of a social bond. It may help us define why wars are fought and loves are lost."
The study was sponsored by the Markey Center for Neurological Sciences Fellowship, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD). Other Emory researchers involved in the study were David A. Gutman, Thorsten R. Zeh, and Giuseppe Pagnoni, Ph.D.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Emory University Health Sciences Center.
Reposted from:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm
Science Daily — Functional MRI scans have revealed a "biologically embedded" basis for altruistic behavior, with several characteristic regions of the brain being activated when players of a game called "Prisoner's Dilemma" decide to trust each other and cooperate, rather than betray each other for immediate gain, say researchers from Emory University. They report on their study in the July 18 issue of the journal Neuron, published by Cell Press.
For many years, evolutionary biologists, behaviorists, economists and political scientists have attempted to understand why cooperation exists between human beings, even though that cooperation may not result in a direct or immediate reward. This unselfish behavior called "altruism" is almost uniquely a human trait.
Up until now, almost all brain imaging experiments that have studied the social brain have done so by exposing subjects to static 2-D images inside the scanner. "This study represents an attempt to learn about the social brain by scanning people as they are engaged in a true social interaction," said James K. Rilling, Ph.D., principal investigator in the Emory study, who is currently serving a postdoctoral fellowship at Princeton University. In the Fall of 2003, Dr. Rilling will return to Emory as a faculty member with a joint appointment in the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (CBN) at Emory University School of Medicine and the Emory University Department of Anthroplogy.
In two separate experiments, the researchers used fMRI to scan the brains of 36 women while they played the "Prisoner's Dilemma Game," a decades-old model for cooperation based on reciprocal altruism. Two players independently chose to either cooperate with each other or not (defect), and each was awarded a sum of money that depended upon the interaction of both players' choices in that round.
In the first experiment, 19 subjects were scanned in four game sessions designed to observe neural function during cooperation and non-cooperation during both human interactions (social) and interactions with a computer (non-social). The results of the first experiment revealed different patterns of neural activation depending on whether the playing partner was identified as a human or a computer. In the second experiment, 17 subjects were scanned during three game sessions, focusing specifically on human interaction.
Mutual cooperation was the most common outcome in games played with presumed human partners in both experiments, even though a player was maximally rewarded for defecting when the other player cooperated. During the mutually cooperative social interactions, activation was noted in those areas of the brain that are linked to reward processing: the nucleus accumbens, the caudate nucleus, ventromedial frontal/orbitofrontal cortex and rostral anterior cingulate cortex.
"Our study shows, for the first time, that social cooperation is intrinsically rewarding to the human brain, even in the face of pressures to the contrary, " said Gregory S. Berns, M.D., Ph.D., co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry in the Emory University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and member of the CBN. "It suggests that the altruistic drive to cooperate is biologically embedded-- either genetically programmed or acquired through socialization during childhood and adolescence."
"Reciprocal altruism activates a reward circuit, and this activation may often be sufficiently reinforcing to override subsequent temptations to accept but not reciprocate altruism. This may be what motivates us to persist with cooperative social interactions and reap the benefits of sustained mutual cooperation," said Dr. Rilling.
"The combination of game behavior and functional brain imaging also provides a unique paradigm to explore the neural basis of social behavioral disorders such as autism, drug addiction and sociopathy, that are characterized by deficits in social reciprocity, impulse regulation, or social reward processing," adds Clint Kilts, Ph.D., co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry at Emory. "It defines the most complex form of the human genesis of a social bond. It may help us define why wars are fought and loves are lost."
The study was sponsored by the Markey Center for Neurological Sciences Fellowship, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD). Other Emory researchers involved in the study were David A. Gutman, Thorsten R. Zeh, and Giuseppe Pagnoni, Ph.D.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Emory University Health Sciences Center.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, July 5, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 117 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #54166 by J Steven on July 5, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Ah yes, but of course God was Smart Enough to make sure that He Created the brain to make it look like we have scruples without Him when in fact our brains wouldn't even exist unless He had been there to make them and give them...ok, waitaminute, I'm getting confused.Seriously though, this research is fascinating. However, evidence clearly is not the real issue (though I would love to know if a similar effect could be found in other primates). We need to educate, advocate, and propagate!
Other Comments by J Steven
3. Comment #54167 by Angieruns on July 5, 2007 at 7:57 pm
J Steven,Good job summarizing the default argument of many religious people when science flies in the face of their fairy tales: God made it appear that way to test our faith.
Lame stance...and yet astoundingly common.
Other Comments by Angieruns
4. Comment #54181 by Jolly Wally on July 5, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Angieruns,I call it the Santa Claus Maneuver (SCM). It consists of making up ever more feeble excuses for what one wants to be true. I recall employing this technique persistently in my childhood to defiantly maintain belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
Other Comments by Jolly Wally
5. Comment #54183 by Solarium Solaris on July 5, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Our brains are so amazing. Yes, many religious people often give credit to their imaginary god, but many atheists are so quick to bash those wackos that they overlook the true beauty and power of the human mind. Other Comments by Solarium Solaris
6. Comment #54184 by Solarium Solaris on July 5, 2007 at 9:46 pm
How do you get an avatar on this thing? Other Comments by Solarium Solaris
7. Comment #54188 by BT Murtagh on July 5, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Excellent article. I've seen such studies written about in mainstream press before, and for some reason the writers always go overboard and claim that this proves that altruism is "hardwired" - which is not the case. Dr. Berns stated it precisely:"It suggests that the altruistic drive to cooperate is biologically embedded-- either genetically programmed or acquired through socialization during childhood and adolescence."
The question of whether the neurological structures rewarding altruism are totally inborn or induced by socialization is not proven. They may be inborn, and sometimes suppressed by bad upbringing, or the default may be sociopathy, avoidable by inducing altruistic feedback structures.
The studies also really don't address whether religious or secular teaching is better for inducing the structures, if they are induced. I very strongly suspect that normal socialisation and secular values teaching is actually a better way to inculcate a strong altruistic sense than the crude commandments plus carrot-and-stick approach most religionists prefer*. I haven't seen any really strong evidence either way from well constructed studies, though.
* If only because a 'crisis of faith' later in life may destroy the basis of a religite's altruism, both the source of commandments (god) and the metaphysical carrot (heaven) and stick (hell), while values taught strictly for their own sake won't have that vulnerability.
Other Comments by BT Murtagh
8. Comment #54189 by BT Murtagh on July 5, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Actually, come to think of it, does Dr. Berns really have solid reason for believing that the feedback structures have to be acquired "by socialization during childhood and adolescence"? Granted that that's probably the easiest time to do so, but the human brain can retain a lot of plasticity throughout adulthood as well.
Other Comments by BT Murtagh
9. Comment #54202 by BMMcArdle on July 6, 2007 at 2:41 am
Altruism is almost a uniquely human trait?Straight from Wikipedia:
Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.
Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe.
Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to members of the pack not present at the kill.
Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.
Gibbons and chimpanzees with food will, in response to a gesture, share their food with others of the group.
Bonobos have been observed aiding other injured or handicapped bonobos.
According to the research of Gerald Wilkinson, vampire bats have a "buddy system" in which a bat who has had a successful night of feeding will regurgitate blood for its less fortunate companion.
In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other "helper" birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings.
Most mammal carnivores like wolves or dogs have a habit of not harming pack members below certain age, of opposite sex or in surrendering position (in case of some animals, the behavior exists within entire species rather than one pack).
Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked.
Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators.
Other Comments by BMMcArdle
10. Comment #54206 by gordon on July 6, 2007 at 2:47 am
Can we find out where it is exactly please. I'd like to shrink mine so I can be a complete bastard and make more money. Will that be possible? Other Comments by gordon
11. Comment #54208 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 3:17 am
This makes little difference to the ethical origin: there is also a biological basis for aggression - why do we value altruism and not aggression?Many thinkers have thought compassion a weakness of mind, including Plato and many Romans.
Compassion is ultimately a Christian value: Christianity was always seen as a sentimentalist religion from its very conception.
I think many so-called atheists have subconsciously inherited this sentimental, Christian world-view but wish to ground it in science.
Of course I am an atheist, but a true atheist: one who rejects morality as a faith just as religion. You cannot 'prove' morality.
You can perhaps prove altruism (as the article suggests), but why is altruism good and not a weakness? That requires faith.
Western atheists are still predominantly secular Christians.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
12. Comment #54210 by AdrianB on July 6, 2007 at 3:26 am
"This unselfish behavior called "altruism" is almost uniquely a human trait."BMMcArdle, you beat me to it in highlighting the one line in the article that is false.
Other Comments by AdrianB
13. Comment #54212 by gordon on July 6, 2007 at 3:31 am
HenriBergson,Altruism can yeild pleasing results, love, companionship, friendship, necessary for group survival. Bonobo's and our other ape brothers (and sisters) show compassion, are they Christians?
Other Comments by gordon
14. Comment #54216 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 3:47 am
Gordon,Of course altruism is good for survival, but so is aggression, depending on cirumstances.
Bonobos and apes are also aggressive. I didn't write that -having- altruism means you're essentially Christian, but rather -valuing- it.
Love, companionship, pity, etc. all are values helping especially the weak. Christianity stems from a weak slave group (under the Romans). It's a sentimentalist creed. We should be careful to not fall into their world-view, I would say.
(Obviously Christianity developed into a powerful creed post-Constantine, but this powerful creed exploits people's weaknesses.)
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
15. Comment #54217 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 3:56 am
If morality is not a faith, answer this:--Prove that the statement, "Killing innocent people is wrong", is a fact--
Prove it.
(And do not say that it makes people happier not being killed, as religion also makes people happier - happiness, pleasure or pain does not make something true, as Dawkins repeatedly points out.)
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
16. Comment #54219 by gordon on July 6, 2007 at 4:09 am
Henri,How we got here is the subject or all sorts of debate, from pure reductionism, through religion and many other beliefs. The question surely, is where we want to go. Do we want an aggressive 'selfish gene' pure Darwinian world view (in the sense of a continual survival of the fittest route, my apologies Richard for clipping evolution like this) to guide us. Will we, with greater knowledge of our thought processes shake off our Darwinian nature to grow a society that values all its members and harnesses all our abilities with reward? I realise we are a long way off from this and most scientific advances are harnessed by the most 'aggressive' to further their comfort levels. Should we have an aim as a species at all? Surely our aim as a species is to combine our talents and cognisance to move from the planet to ensure our future place in the universe? Other than present physical threat, groups like Al Qaeda (and organised Religion) are a past world view. They have no future as science rolls away mystique after mystique. The hard work is to keep disaster at bay (war, disease, Global warming, Asteroid strike, etc) until we can attain our full potential. I am not a pacifist but I think compassion is underrated. Maybe compassion will be our greatest evolutionary advantage in the end. Who knows? We are, after all, a work in progress.
Other Comments by gordon
17. Comment #54220 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 4:19 am
A future place in the universe would probably be more attainable through having more wars as technology (especially missile technology) would develop more rapidly (in an arms race).Compassion, pacificism could annihilate a species.
But can you prove morality, if not why do you believe it? You may as well believe in Islam or Hinduism without proof.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
18. Comment #54222 by gordon on July 6, 2007 at 4:23 am
Henri,How do you define the marality for which you want proof?
Other Comments by gordon
19. Comment #54223 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 4:26 am
The statement I posed.(The fact that morality does change and is different in different times & places indicates its falsity - just like the different religions prove their falsity.)
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
20. Comment #54224 by gordon on July 6, 2007 at 4:27 am
Henri,Compassion and pacifism are not the same. The aggressive use of our planet and resources is the biggest risk we face at present.
Other Comments by gordon
21. Comment #54225 by gordon on July 6, 2007 at 4:30 am
Henri,Maybe morality evolves as our cognisance and understanding grows. It may become more powerful but Religion will, after its final destructive finale, diminish.
Other Comments by gordon
22. Comment #54228 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 4:36 am
you are religious then. Other Comments by Henri Bergson
23. Comment #54229 by gordon on July 6, 2007 at 4:44 am
Henri,You didn't answer my question. How do you define morality?
Will answer later as work has reared its ugly head.
PS, I do not rule out a God. I think it ridiculously unlikely. I do rule out religion as an arrogant suposition. If something breathed life into the universe we most certainly do not know or understand (yet) what it is.
PPS, Killing innocent people is not always wrong on an individual level. It is sometimes unavoidable in order to protect others. A byproduct of other actions.
Other Comments by gordon
24. Comment #54231 by PaulEmecz on July 6, 2007 at 4:55 am
Henri BergsonAt last. An atheist who understands what atheism means. I disagree with you about God - I'm a theist. I am uncomfortably aware of the baggage that goes with belief in God. However, so many people on this site want to have their cake and eat it. I think there are only two reasonable positions (and I fully understand why you see my position as less reasonable). The 'third' option of atheism with a belief in morality is not acceptable.
Reciprocal altruism is not morality. If you only believe in what we can know through experience, you can't believe in morality. You can't get from an 'is' to an 'ought'. 'Reciprocal altruism' as evidenced by the prisoner's dilemma works for the lowest forms of life, possibly even at a bacterial level. It is a very long way from being anything like morality.
Henri, I agree with you 99%. Just not about the God not existing bit.
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
25. Comment #54237 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 5:20 am
Henri BergsonProve that the statement, "Killing innocent people is wrong", is a fact.Objectives that appear to sustain human society must be good, for without human society there can be no morals and this discussion becomes moot.
Lawful behavior promotes bonds of trust among people and ought to be encouraged generally. Killing innocent, or lawful citizens, is contrary to this objective.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
26. Comment #54240 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 5:34 am
Benway,To say that there is 'good' (morality) because it sustains society, and sustaining society is good, is a vicious circle.
It's like saying that God exists because it's in the bible, and the bible is true because it's the word of God!
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
27. Comment #54242 by gordon on July 6, 2007 at 5:38 am
Dr Benway,Quite.
Henri,
You still didn't answer my question. Define morality. Is it a vague notion that combines altruism and compassion that you would define as weakness? Which morality are we looking at, past historical stance or our evolving stance?
Other Comments by gordon
28. Comment #54243 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 5:42 am
Gordon,I did answer your question, you didn't read it. The statement about innocents is a specific definition that can be considered.
If you want a broader definition: belief in good & evil, right & wrong.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
29. Comment #54245 by gordon on July 6, 2007 at 5:45 am
Henri,There is no such line. Everything is grey. There are no principles of absolute but only broad aims. The point is, as individuals we cannot prosper.
Other Comments by gordon
30. Comment #54247 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 6:00 am
So now you're beginning to agree with me Gordon! Other Comments by Henri Bergson
31. Comment #54251 by Benjamin Michael on July 6, 2007 at 6:23 am
HB: "This makes little difference to the ethical origin: there is also a biological basis for aggression - why do we value altruism and not aggression?"- Aggression *is* valued. As is Altruism. It depends on the context - and sometimes they go together: when it is societally valuable to be aggressively altruistic (Eg. Rescue of hostages at Entebbe Airport).
HB: "Many thinkers have thought compassion a weakness of mind, including Plato and many Romans."
- Sure. Many thinkers have thought many evolved behavioral traits to be weaknesses - many think aggression a weakness, many think love a weakness.
HB: "Compassion is ultimately a Christian value..."
- Well this is utter nonsense! Take for example (but one example) Confucius (500BCE):
1. "Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire."
2. "Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage."
3. "He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good."
4. "To practice five things under all circumstances constitutes perfect virtue; these five are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness."
(I could go on and on)
HB: "but why is altruism good and not a weakness? That requires faith."
- no, it requires *observation* not faith. Altruism is "good" in most circumstances as it observably has more utility.
HB: "I think many so-called atheists have subconsciously inherited this sentimental, Christian world-view but wish to ground it in science... Western atheists are still predominantly secular Christians."
- Some perhaps. But this statement is not a correct one, not as you have stated it. There may be overlap in Christian philosophy, but there is overlap in many religious philosophies - not everything religion teaches is bad (just most of it) so you can always paint a western athiest with the brush of the virtuous aspects of some religion or another.
Other Comments by Benjamin Michael
32. Comment #54254 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 6:45 am
Benjamin Michael,The first part of your post simply establishes what I wrote:
All behavioural traits can be valued or not - my point is that to value one above another (say, altruism above aggression) is subjective not objective (i.e. not a 'fact').
Secondly of course other creeds value compassion, not just Confucianism, but also Buddhism, Islam, Scientology, etc. We of European descent value compassion due to our Christian heritage though, obviously. Therefore our western bias towards valuing compassion, say, is Christian.
Thirdly, utility does not equal good! This is the classic 'is-ought fallacy'. Religion is useful to many people, is it therefore 'good'?! Nietzsche wrote about this with regard to the English moralist, Paul Rée. Read it (Genealogy of Morality).
Thus morality is indeed faith, not observation.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
33. Comment #54255 by troyreynolds86 on July 6, 2007 at 6:58 am
I wouldn't go so far as to call our ethics a faith, but I would grant Henri the point in that our morality has a certain looseness about it that is defined by moral teachings. Although to call this religious is to miss the point a little bit I would think. I don't think that we would call a person who garnered moral insight from any of the great works of philosophy as being religious, nor faithful, but basing a personal standpoint upon a sound argument or simply evaluating an idea as being a good idea. It would still require some personal reflection, some internal dialogue and evaluation to determine if the principle should be followed. I couldn't categorized this as faith, although it does fall a few shades shy of being absolute reason in some areas. For it to be faith it would require that we never did evaluate it upon merit but only accepted it as being for its own sake, most often as divine commandment. I accept some Judeo-Christian ethics, reject others and in turn seek out other ideas to investigate in an ongoing refinement process. This is ethics. This is morality. One simply uses the evolved centers of the brain, couples them with moral teachings to produce an outcome. To restict morality to total absolutism or total relativism overlooks that there is more to morality than a brain or a holy book. There is society, personal experience, family pressures, etc. that all shape the positions that we hold. We would never take these on faith, we take them in hopes of discovering a better way, of growing and evolving our moral sense.Paul, I am interested. Why can't an atheist believe in morality? What is it about atheists that makes morality beyond their capacity? Is it your point about "knowing only through experience"? I would like to discuss this. It is enjoyable to have believers such as you on this site. It gives us reasons to think, to better form our position and perhaps to learn. That is always a benefit.
Other Comments by troyreynolds86
34. Comment #54258 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:18 am
Henri:Thus morality is indeed faith, not observation.Morality can be based upon a social contract, or an agreement, among people. This is not faith.
To say that there is 'good' (morality) because it sustains society, and sustaining society is good, is a vicious circle.The circle breaks once humankind disappears. No humans, no good or bad.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
35. Comment #54259 by Benjamin Michael on July 6, 2007 at 7:21 am
HB, of course it is subjective. There is no such thing as objectivity in the way you seem to be applying it. I am painfully having flashbacks to the McGrath thread and Dianelos' definition of objective morality. But it is also not subjective in the way the word is normally used. "Subjective" can imply whimsical choice. But this form of subjective morality is a far stronger form - akin to weak objectivity - in that it is something that will be held as temporally true by all members of a species (with statistically insignificant exceptions). It is held as objectively true not in the same way that 1+1=2, but from observation of utility which gets hardwired genetically over the generations through evolutionary forces. I understand the is-ought fallacy but I do not consider "good" in the way you are using it. I put it to you that "good" is a nonsense, unless framed in a utilatarian way. In an odd way then, I agree with you that to consider "morality" as something universally objective (true for all to discover in any universe in all times) and to consider notions of "good" and "evil" as more than refined utilities is, as you put it, a kind of faith derivative. HB: "We of European descent value compassion due to our Christian heritage though, obviously. Therefore our western bias towards valuing compassion, say, is Christian."
I still disagree with this. Compassion is provably not a derivative of Christianity, nor a very Christian practice. As a Jew (by birth) I am perhaps more equipped to recognize the distinct *lack* of compassion that Christianity always has preached and practiced. IMO, we value compassion because of the factors described above. European christian popularity is in my view, merely a contemporaneous circumstance to the modern western world valuing compassion. The pre-christian world valued compassion as did non european societies of the past 2000 years. I am thoroughly unconvinced by your argument here and still consider it is a nonsense.
Other Comments by Benjamin Michael
36. Comment #54260 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 7:28 am
Benway,Social contract is not morality.
The former purports benefits; the latter, facts.
Something may benefit me without it being true (e.g. religion).
With regard to the breaking of the circle - you agree then with me!
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
37. Comment #54261 by Red Foot Oakie on July 6, 2007 at 7:32 am
Interesting article. The MRI and its various incarnatins are fascinating, shining the harsh light of science into the greasy corners of our very minds!One of the things I'm curious to see, is if this technology can/will be used to find the sociopath. I think, although I can't prove, that the 2-4% of humanity that are sociopaths seem to cause 90% of our problems.
Most of us, the VAST majority of us, are willing to get along pretty well under normal circumstances, but that small percentage just doesn't want to play.
Other Comments by Red Foot Oakie
38. Comment #54262 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:34 am
HenriSocial contract is not morality. The former purports benefits; the latter, facts.I'm afraid you've lost me. Morality purports facts?
This is the agreement:
1. One ought to keep one's promises. Contracts have no meaning without this imperative.
2. Some version of the golden rule. An ethical foundation must be general enough to apply to everyone.
3. Seek to sustain the survival of humankind and its future generations.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
39. Comment #54263 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:37 am
HenriWith regard to the breaking of the circle - you agree then with me!In seeking agreement, you affirm the contractual nature of morality.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
40. Comment #54264 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 7:41 am
Benjamin Michael,So we do, after all, agree with regards to the first and second points. A question of semantics.
Regarding the inheritance of compassion - as a virtue (importantly) - it is undeniable that it derives from Christianity (in Europe and America). The Romans, the Vikings, the Samurai, the pre-Socratic Greeks, all thought compassion & pity to be a vice, a womanly affectation. Christianity emerged from a class of Jewish slaves who clearly valued compassion, et al, as they were in need of it. This is why Christianity today feeds on the weak: drug addicts, the feeble, those with psychological problems (like McGrath!).
England has been Christian for much over 1000 years, simply ridding ourselves of the belief in God will not rid our ingrained belief in its morality (which is part & parcel of its power structure). It is so ingrained that we do not even question it - so let us do just that!
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
41. Comment #54265 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 7:44 am
I once had a lecturer called Michael Benjamin... Other Comments by Henri Bergson
42. Comment #54267 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 7:48 am
Benway,If I do not want to enter the social contract, am I 'wrong'?
If I do not wish to enter this contract, but want to kill a lot of people for fun, could you criticise me? The social contract itself cannot be used to criticise this behaviour - morality could. That is the difference: morality purports that it is a fact that some actions (like killing innocents) are 'wrong'.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
43. Comment #54268 by Fezik on July 6, 2007 at 7:50 am
I have been reading the articles and associated comments on this site for a while now, and I simply have to applaud the amount of civility I see in this particular thread, despite diverging views. Kudos to you all!Edit: Before anyone asks: no, I'm not being sarcastic. I've seen threads degenerate quickly and this one is refreshingly different.
Other Comments by Fezik
44. Comment #54269 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:59 am
Henri:If I do not want to enter the social contract, am I 'wrong'?
I'm not sure what "do not want to enter the social contract means." If it means you refuse explicit, verbal agreement, I think that's of no consequence.
If it means that you act contrary to #1, 2, or 3 in my prior post, they yes, your contrary action would be a wrong action.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
45. Comment #54272 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 8:07 am
Benway,That then means that your social contract is founded upon a prior (hidden) morality which states that if you do not agree with and follow the social contract you are being immoral. This is the faith you have, implicitly.
This was a similar criticism to that laid upon J S Mill by Herbert Spencer with regard to utilitarianism.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
46. Comment #54280 by BMMcArdle on July 6, 2007 at 9:02 am
I thought the subject of this article was about the evidence for a "biologically embedded" basis for altruistic behavior. Did Christianity cause this to happen?Other Comments by BMMcArdle
47. Comment #54283 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 9:09 am
Possibly one small, recent factor. One thing I forgot to mention:
Contrary to the common argument that compassion has helped mankind develop, it could be argued that it has hindered the evolution of mankind by proliferating the weak.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
48. Comment #54286 by SRWB on July 6, 2007 at 9:19 am
Contrary to the common argument that compassion has helped mankind develop, it could be argued that it has hindered the evolution of mankind by proliferating the weak.
Depends upon what you mean by "weak". As human society evolved and developed ever more complicated technology, physical strength has arguably become less and less a requirement for existence. People who are physically weak might compensate for this by being mentally and intellectually stronger, thus having a different, yet very important value to the rest of humanity as a whole.
Other Comments by SRWB
49. Comment #54294 by Henri Bergson on July 6, 2007 at 9:44 am
srwb,I mean both physically AND mentally weaker. Technology & Christianity can lead to most people not thinking as much.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
50. Comment #54299 by BT Murtagh on July 6, 2007 at 9:57 am
Every society has some constellation of predispositions considered good, and some bad. In this sense, good is defined simply as conforming to societal expectations, bad as not; the specifics may be viewed as arbitrary since they are defined entirely within the societal system itself, i.e. they are ultimately self-referential. If no universal standard can be applied to judge between sets of societal predispositions (which is to say between societies), then no society can be usefully judged except in its own terms; this is the view known as moral relativism. Taken to its logical extreme, the reductio ad absurdum, moral relativism carries all the flaws it is accused of; murder is indeed equivalent to jaywalking, to a hypothetical detached intellect judging the two.
However, there are at least three standards which can be applied across societies which are useful for comparing them irrespective of the specific tenets of the compared. Our hypothetical detached intellect may still, without moral judgment, scale any two given societies (sets of interacting presuppositions) on the bases of internal consistency, of adaptability to change both external and internal, and ultimately of utility in terms of survival.
The former may be judged by the degree to which an individual member of a society can think and act within the society's precepts without conflicting with others doing likewise. A society which values only adherence to a given set of self-consistent values would always score highly on such a scale, and need never fear destruction from within; destruction from without would always be a danger.
Most religions score pretty badly on internal consistency; this is why they either split incessantly into smaller schisms, or actively suppress societal mechanisms (such as widespread literacy) for examining their precepts. The latter tactic badly degrades societal adaptability.
Contrastingly, science by its core methodology incorporates any novelties of data or ideas into its core. Basic inconsistencies, such as the conflicts between general relativity and quantum mechanics, are not suppressed or ignored but rather actively worked upon. Nothing is sacred except the methodology itself, and if you could empirically convince scientist that tossing chicken bones worked better they'd probably order all further lab lunches from KFC.
Adaptability is thus built right into the foundation of science. Contrarily, since religion relies strongly upon revelation for content, and such revelation is normally decreed unquestionable (one might almost define religion in such terms), the bases of any given religion are by definition unchangeable and thereby inapt for adaptation either internal or external.
The remaining criterion by which our hypothetical detached intellect might judge societies is simple ability to survive. The Darwinian viewpoint prefers the society that survives best, but there is no inherent guarantee that the society which survives best prefers the Darwinian viewpoint. It could well be, as you imply, that some particular set of non-true societal assumptions might work better than the truth, and even that some non-scientific societal processes might better serve any given good, including survival. With respect, though, I consider it very unlikely; I have to confess, of course, that what makes me consider it unlikely is largely the application of the scientific method itself.
While the body of societies which have appreciated the scientific method (of testing ideas against reality) is necessarily small compared to those which had no such notion, the former have been far more successful, not only in traditional terms of population and wealth but in terms of adaptability to changing circumstance.
Without knowing it for an inconcontestible fact, I therefore believe that a secular society based on evidence-based inquiry is 'better' than a religious society based on authority-based faith., where 'better' is based on societal survival. Is it possible that a society based on unfounded assumptions and unsound (or no) methods for testing them would be better suited for survival than a society which valued truth and logic?
Well, possibly, but I'm not betting on it. Show me a study, or a disprovable theory.
Other Comments by BT Murtagh
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"The world and the universe is an extremely beautiful place, and the more we understand about it the more beautiful does it appear."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
The Secular Conscience
Austin Dacey
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #54165 by Angieruns on July 5, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I'm glad that this burgeoning neuroscience focus is producing answers to fundamental questions about our ethical hardware. The lame argument from the religious that morality is inextricably linked to their mythological gods is tiresome, and science has been ill equipped thus far to respond.Kudos to Emory University!
Other Comments by Angieruns