Morality and Sociality

1. Morality and Sociality Moral Decision-Making: Personal Dilemmas Question: Are you moral? Moral Judgments: Impersonal Decisions Question: Is an act moral? Morality: Innate/Learned? Evolution? Miller, G. 2008. Science 320:734.

2. Morality, 18th Century Immanuel Kant Reason (Should)  Moral Decisions Learned David Hume Emotions Moral Decisions “Innate”

3. Study of Morality, 21st Century Emotion, “Reason” Interact Strong Role for Emotion Reason, Sometimes, a posteriori Justification Different Brain Centers, Networks: Emotion Affecting Moral Judgment Utilitarian Logic (Reason, Learned) Interaction of Brain Networks Different Components

4. Emotional Context & Moral Judgment J. Haidt (U Virginia): Empirical Approach Subjects: College Students “Your friend lied to obtain employment.” A. Student at New Desk B. Student at “Filthy, Stained” Desk Response: Moral Judgment

5. Emotion & Moral Judgment/ J. Haidt Friend Lied to Obtain Employment A. Student at New Desk B. Student at “Filthy, Stained” Desk Filthy Desk “More Immoral” Disgust (Emotion) Impacts Moral Judgment; Stimulus Unrelated to Moral Issue Impact Moral Decision-making?

6. Interaction: Emotion & Reason Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex (VPC) Network of Brain Regions: “Prosocial” Evoke Guilt, Compassion, Empathy Emotions of Morality VPC Damaged Some Moral Decisions Abnormal Less Emotional Decisions Normal, Key Impact of Reason Beyond Emotion

7. Learned Contribution to Moral Judgment J. Haidt: Bases Common to Different Cultures • Harm Done(2) “Fairness” (Equity) (3) Loyalty (4) Respect for Authority (5) Spiritual Purity “Liberal” Stress (1) & (2) [Probably Universal, Non-Human Primates] “Conservative” Value (1) thru (5) Similarly (1): Reason, (2) Emotion (Return to this)

8. Brosnan and de Waal (2003) Nature 425:297. Female brown capuchin (Cebus apella) Exchange token with human, receive food Grape preferred over slice of cucumber Subjects view both exchanges Subject with non-preferred reward: reject ET: Equal IT: Inequality EC: Grape/no token FC: Food only

9. Distributive Justice Recall, All Cultures’ Morality: (1) Reduce Harm Done (mean) (2) Promote Fairness = Equity (variance) Distributive Justice: How Trade-off Competing Objectives (1) and (2) Morality of Allocating Benefits/Costs to Others

10. Maximize Total Good or Minimize Total Harm Objective Quasi-Independent of Distribution Among Individuals (Equity) “Utilitarian Justice” Rational Model for Distributive Justice e.g. Sum Costs Across Individuals Rational  Justice by Reason (Not Emotion)

11. (2) Fairness Implies Minimize Inequity/Variability in Costs Among Individuals “Moral Sentiment” Despite Quadratic Complexity, Fair vs Not Fair Modeled as Emotional

12. Hsu et al. (2008) Science 320:1092.

13. Where Morality? Regions of Brain: Substrates Associated with Moral Judgments Addressed Descriptively Functional Magnet Res Imaging (fMRI) “Fishing” for Increased Activity Phases of Moral Decision Address: Context of “Distributive Justice”

14. Hsu et al. (2008) Science 320:1092 Given Subjects Face Moral Decision (Hypothetical) Describe {Reason  Emotion} Quantitatively fMRI: Associated Neural Centers Subjects: Donors to Orphanage Exercise: Distributive Justice (Allocation)

15. Hsu et al. (2008) Science 320:1092 26 Adult Donors Hypothetical Allocation of Meals: How Many Meals Take Away From 2 Groups of Children to Feed Third Group? “Fairer”, But Less Total Fed Design: Vary Options wrt Efficiency and Equity (Recall Lack of “Ecological Validity”)

16. Hsu et al. (2008) Science 320:1092 Neural Substrates Know Dopaminergic Regions Computation, Learning of Reward [Including Indirect Reward of Charitable Giving] (Assert) Reason: Efficiency, Utility, ~ Numerical Scale Know Insular Cortex Involved in Sense Fairness, Empathy (Assert) Emotion: Equity

17. Hsu et al. (2008) Science 320:1092 Plot: Subjects Effects of Efficiency & Inequity; Distributive Justice Ordinate: Interaction Abscissa: Inequity Aversion Subjects With Stronger Response to Efficiency (Sum Meals) Less Responsive to Inequity Linearity too simple?

18. Hsu et al. (2008) Science 320:1092 Locus of Activity Interaction of Efficiency & Inequity Stronger Signal: More Responsive to Totals Meals Appreciates “Rational,” But Responds to Both Efficiency AND Inequity

19. Hsu et al. (2008) Science 320:1092 Assume Separate Neural Regions for Efficiency and Equity Bilateral (L & R) Putamen: Strong Response to Efficiency (Sum Meals); Near 0 Response to Inequity

20. Hsu et al. (2008) Science 320:1092 L & R Putamen MC: Efficiency GC: Inequity

21. Hsu et al. (2008) Science 320:1092 Assume Separate Neural Regions for Efficiency and Equity Bilateral Insular Cortex (“Emotional;” Seeks Fairness): Strong Response to Inequity (Variability of meals); Near 0 Response to Efficiency

22. Hsu et al. (2008) Science 320:1092 G: Inequity M: Efficiency

23. Why Morality? Morality Evolved to Promote Individual’s Social Cohesion: • Advantages of Group Membership • Reduce Coercion within Group • Treat Kin Cooperatively? • Acquire Cooperators, Reciprocal Altruists?

24. Morality and Sociality Morality: What, Why, Where? Hypothesis: Evolved Neural Systems Promote Individual’s Access to Benefits of Social Interaction Assembled by Natural Selection in Social Primates Combing Prosocial Emotional Capacities and Rational Calculus of Benefits & Costs

25. Morality and Sociality Distributive Justice Rational, Utilitarian Component Emotional, Fairness Component Similarity to Risk-sensitivity Larger Mean Rewards Reduced Variability of Reward AND “Calculated” in Different Brain Regions