The neurobiological studies of the experimental game described above.
transient neuroeconomic theory, suggesting that the interaction of systems is not
arbitrary and arbitrary processing of information during decision-making based
It appears on the competition of certain areas of the brain. This theory turned out to be
press and to research on decision-making processes related to the system of moral
No! ”- this will be the answer that comes to mind first. Overwhelmingly
cases - can not. But, as always, there are exceptions to the rules. If we are talking about
lyceum, who committed the murder of an aggressive criminal, defending innocent de
Tei, then the act committed by him can be justified. One way or another, every person
constantly compares the results of their behavior with social norms. Influence of
A popular moral dilemma is the so-called “tram case”.
mo will knock down five pedestrians, if they do not change directions
of life. The only way out is to try to switch the arrow and direct the tram to
sidings, but in this case the unsuspecting will perish, accidentally rendering
smiling in this very place man. Suppose you are standing next to an arrow and can
switch rails from one path to another. What to prefer: the death of five or murder
is one? Most people will agree that the death of one walker is preferable.
Go (Greene et al., 2001). But let's consider a similar situation only in slightly
In terms of conditions, the “story with a footbridge” ( footbridge dilemma) (Thomson, 1986):
imagine that you are standing next to a portly stranger on a pedestrian bridge above the road
goy, just between the approaching tram and those five unfortunate potential
mi victims; by pushing down a stout stranger, you can stop the tram and save
life of five pedestrians. What do you choose: shove a stranger or watch over death
five people? It turns out that in the situation of choice in this “personalized” case
most will oppose the idea of sacrificing an innocent stranger (Greene et
al., 2001). On a footbridge (personalized dilemma), the subject exhibited
emotionally charged situation and forced to do much more difficult
choice than in the situation of switching arrows (non-personalized dilemma), where the emo
national intensity is lower and rational thinking of what is happening can be undertaken.
shchy. An fMRI scan showed that areas of the brain associated with emotional and
social reactions (for example, cingulate gyrus) are more strongly activated when
Yes, subjects have to solve a personalized dilemma similar to the “historical
with a pedestrian bridge ”, while the cognitive areas responsible for the rational
decision-making aspects (for example, DLPFC) are activated more strongly in tasks
to solve non-personalized utilitarian problems, similar to the dilemma
Turning off the arrows (“the case of the tram”).
Further research focused on comparing the moral dilemmas of different
degree of difficulty. It was found (Greene et al., 2004) that with a difficult choice of active
anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is the front
ha, involved in handling internal conflicts (Botvinick et al., 2001). In the same time
a positive correlation of the activity of the “rational” DLPFC area with
making utilitarian decisions, such as making a rational decision to save five people,
by donating one.
Both of the brain areas mentioned — ACC and DLPFC — are activated during the decision and
other type of moral dilemmas. For example, the subject was asked to rate and accept
decision in the following imaginary situation: the aggressors seized the town and
ordered to destroy the survivors of civilians. You and a small group of you
refugee comrades hiding in the basement of a large house. Upstairs, the occupiers arrange
Do a search. Your newborn baby starts crying loudly. You cover his mouth
palm so that he could not hear his sobs. If you take your hand away, then there will be no crying.
Minute heard - the soldiers will come and shoot you, your child and all hide
in the basement. To save the life of themselves and their comrades, it remains only to take life
child What will be your choice? Is it possible to kill a child to save the lives of others
people? This case is an example of a complex moral dilemma. When tested
asked to resolve this dilemma, they were going to answer extremely long, and they decided
these were very different. Increased ACC activation observed in this task
and the DLPFC indicated a high level of conflict, and it was DLPFC activity that was
predicted a utilitarian “cognitive” solution (Greene et al., 2004).
The infanticide dilemma is another moral dilemma
we. Subjects are invited to evaluate the actions of a woman who has chosen to
sew the life of his newborn child to avoid the shame associated with his
legal birth. Without hesitation, the subjects express their condemnation of the
actions, because no one would approve of monstrous infanticide. The answer in this dilemma
suggests itself: murder is a crime! The results of brain scans are
The decision was unequivocal (Greene et al., 2004), showing that the activity
ACC - the area responsible for cognitive conflict, and DLPFC - the area responsible for
cognitive control was lower than in the experiment where the subject was asked
think about the opportunity to sacrifice the life of a child for the sake of other people.
The data of these and other neuroeconomic studies prove the existence of
two competing regulatory systems (“don't kill”) and the utilitarian approach
(“Choose what is better”) to morality, which is provided by the work of various areas
brain (Greene et al., 2004). System 1, which we apparently inherited from
our ancestors, is responsible for following the morally socially-economically significant non-
arbitrary taboos, which are the basis of our social laws. Moral moral
systemism 2, perhaps, arose later in the process of evolution and is associated with the emergence
It is an evolutionary new structures - the dorsal areas of the frontal cortex - areas of the brain that are
neurobiological substrates of such cognitive functions as the abstract
higher-order cognitive control (high-order cognitive control).
The two systems we are considering may conflict, resulting in many
examples of examples when utilitarian thinking led to horrific consequences and
directly contrary to the norms of morality. The atrocities of fascism during the Holocaust,
of the totalitarian regime in the gulag and other crimes were often justified c
point of view of utilitarian, rational reasons, contrary to the norms of the generally accepted
rali. Perhaps, therefore, evidence of massacres, violence and terror diligently
hiding from the masses in order to avoid the possibility of moral
conflict, because the manipulation of the mass consciousness through the press and media channels
allows you to make fundamental changes in the balance between utilitarian and moral
worldviews
Comments
To leave a comment
NEUROECONOMICS
Terms: NEUROECONOMICS