Even morality has an observable molecule in the brain. People can literally inhale morality. Is the spirit just a name for the moral molecule? Are "bad" people just oxytocin deficient? Is it immoral to artificially stimulate morality?
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html
I need to get more hugs!
ReplyDeleteReally interesting. Thanks for sharing. It made me wonder if you could just as easily explain his research by saying that oxytocin causes you to be more optimistic or hopeful (as opposed to trusting and trustworthy) and that in turn causes you to give more of your money away in those lab experiments.
ReplyDeleteIt also made me wonder if the presence of oxytocin is a necessary but not sufficient condition for moral behavior. Almost like if you are taking care of yourself and happy and your hug quota is met, you aren't COMPELLED to go out and be good, but your bucket is full so you're ABLE to do good. Make sense? Almost like getting enough sleep. It doesn't guarantee you'll be good, but at least you won't be a grump.
I say it can't hurt to try to artificially stimulate morality. Let's have mandated hugging and oxytocin sniffing sessions in prison and see if it reduces recidivism.
Thanks again for sharing.
"I need to get more hugs!"
ReplyDeleteTell Dan he needs to stop slacking...
"Even morality has an observable molecule in the brain. People can literally inhale morality."
Although I found the video very fascinating, and potentially revolutionary if it truly implicates those areas noted in the comments on the TED page, I disagree that this shows that morality can be distilled down to a molecule (one that can be inhaled or otherwise).
The problem is that he is equating trust, trustworthiness, and other "good behavior" (as caused by oxytocin) with morality. While, morality is indeed generally understood as a system of right or good behavior, I don't think that his theory can support the full range of what a complete system of morality would require. For example, I am not sure that oxytocin can adequately answer whether abortion, pre-marital sex, or recreational marijuana use are moral or not.
Furthermore, if the point is finding out whether something is moral in the sense of does religion say it is moral or not (or even whether a religion is correct based of what it says is moral), then his theory is problematic at least. His examples seem to focus on actions being moral because they foster a stable, richer society, but what about any precept of religious morality that either isn't answered by his theory or would contradict his theory. For example, his theory could perfectly support homosexual marriage which is contrary to most of Christendom, but doesn't answer the abortion question which, again most religious people oppose. And what about suicide? Can't suicide be good under some circumstances, can't it be moral to stop being a burden on others? Regardless of that question, religion disagrees on the subject (Catholics: sorry, commit suicide and burn in purgatory; some Islamists: commit suicide and kill some infidels and you just bought a one-way ticket to heaven).
It's almost as if his theory is racially, "hey, oxytocin explains the golden rule (do unto others as you'd have them do unto you)", but I don't think that one simple rule encompasses all of morality.
"Is the spirit just a name for the moral molecule?"
No, again, even if oxytocin could be construed to form some sort of basic moral system, it cannot explain religious morality. If it can't explain religious morality, it can't be synonymous with the spirit, because the spirit would indicate broader actions than would oxytocin would prompt a person to do.
"Are 'bad' people just oxytocin deficient?"
No, see my previous points. If oxytocin is not the whole answer to explaining morality, then "bad" people cannot simply be oxytocin deficient (although they very well may be). I think the more apropos question is whether all "anti-social" people are just oxytocin deficient.
"Is it immoral to artificially stimulate morality?"
Generally, but largely because his theory notwithstanding, I don't think morality is purely a chemical imbalance in the body - I still think choice is involved.