The human mind and brain are distinctly different from that of any other creature on the planet. While other mammals share similarities in brain structure, it has long been recognized that the moral nature of man is a distinguishing characteristic of human beings. What exactly makes humans moral creatures? Is there something distinctive in the brain, perhaps a ‘God spot’ that causes man to make choices that are moral in nature?
The idea of a so-called ‘God spot’ has been entertained and studied by scientists who are seeking to understand the moral nature of man. Robert Lee Holz in his Wall Street Journal article states that if you, “knock out certain brain cells with an aneurysm or a tumor…while everything else may appear normal, the ability to think straight about some issues of right and wrong has been permanently skewed.” (Holz, 2007) As the article suggests, this points to a neurobiological basis for moral decision-making.
And this is not a new concept. In the year 1848 railroad foreman Phineas P. Gage had an accident involving a three-foot long tamping iron, which set off a charge of dynamite sending the iron rod through his head. The iron entered his left cheek below his eye and came out the top of his head toward the right side passing behind his eye and landing some 80 feet from Gage. Although he never lost consciousness, Gage lost his moral nature. He went from being a responsible foreman who was serious and energetic, to not caring much about anything, frequenting bars and being loud-mouthed and vulgar. He also became childish, irresponsible and thoughtless of others (Carlson, 2005, p. 301). Gage’s doctor reported him as being ‘irreverent’ (Panksepp, 2003, p. 549). While there are differing theories as to the exact angle the iron passed through Gage’s head, it is certain that his moral nature was altered by the accident.
Recent studies have shown that the area responsible for the choices found in moral dilemmas is the part of the brain called the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) (Talmi & Frith, 2007, p. 865). Talmi & Frith demonstrate that this area also directly communicates with parts of the brain responsible for emotions and that moral dilemmas are judged differently depending on how directly the individual must come into contact with the victim (p. 865).
Moral dilemmas, while they are termed ‘moral’ are actually a choice between two immoral actions, the choice between the lesser of two evils, which are both a violation of conscience (Talmi & Frith, p. 865). This is what makes the choice a ‘dilemma’ because human beings have a conscience that causes them to desire to choose the right.
In the early 1970s, university students were given a moral dilemma involving a boat filled with people both young and old, and were asked to solve a problem of the boat being overloaded by determining whom they would choose to eliminate. Being bright young scholars, the students did some mathematical calculations along with some physics on weight distribution and discovered that tossing a shipmate was not necessary. But their professor was not pleased with their final project and failed them. Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt (1999) relates the preceding story in her book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America and uses it to illustrate how American education has shifted from being ‘academic’ in nature to being what she terms ‘values education.’ (Iserbyt, 1999, p. xxv) Because of the nature of education itself, the teaching of values is an important part of the educational process. However, if moral dilemmas are really the choice between two immoral actions, how can giving students these kinds of problems improve their morality? Such dilemmas, which ask participants to take one life to spare many might seem to some as sound judgment, however, often when the same dilemma is stated in an alternate way, the individual who said it would be OK to ‘flip a switch’ wouldn’t deliberately take a life to spare another or others.
Caiaphas was high priest the year that Jesus was brought to trial. He wanted to be rid of Christ and he rationalized that taking one life would be better than many dying. He spoke at the counsel and said, “Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John 11:49 & 50). The book of John reports that in saying this Caiaphas prophesied as to the significance of the death of Christ and how His death was indeed so that many could live. “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9: 28). The moral choice Caiaphas made regarding Jesus, placed him in the group of those who pierced Christ that will be raised to see the brightness of His coming (Rev. 1:7).
It is important to note that morality is not merely a matter of neural wiring. As Derek Sankey questions, if all brain activity can be reduced to brain function, why does it matter if we give moral education (Sankey, 2006)? In other words, Sankey is questioning the purpose of education in morality if everything can be reduced to brain function itself and not on the choice of the one doing the thinking. Because man is a tri-part being having physical, mental and spiritual natures, it would be wrong to attribute morality as a kind of ‘hard-wiring’ or something that does not involve personal choice. The presentation of moral dilemmas demonstrates that morality involves personal choice and studies show that these choices involve several brain areas including the emotional part of the brain (Talmi & Frith, 2007, p. 865).
Melanie Killen and Judith Smetana (2007) in their journal article, The Biology of Morality: Human Development and Moral Neuroscience, state that “It is not enough to know that an act is judged as good or bad; the ‘moral’ litmus test lies with the reasons why it is viewed as good or bad, right or wrong” (p. 242, italics in original). If we leave morality up to human reasons or reasoning, then the answers to moral questions will always vary and morality will be a nebulous construct. There has to be a moral standard.
For example, a young girl can use contraceptives to prevent a pregnancy or choose to have an abortion if these don’t work; and if there is nothing immoral about premarital intercourse or killing an unborn child, the reasons these things are termed ‘good’ or ‘bad’ just turn out to be human reasons and will change according to who is asked. But if there is a moral standard, which states that adultery and murder are wrong, then the reason is not based on one human’s reason pitted against another.
Derek Sankey in his article in the Journal of Moral Education (2006) suggests that perhaps the answers to such moral questions “should be framed within the context of theology and notions of sin and redemption” (p. 163). He suggests that we are either created a little lower than the angels or else we are evolved to a position a little above apes (p. 164). He himself takes the later position. However, if we are evolved a little higher than apes, then angels are just imaginary religious fairies and do not exist. But if we were created by a Supreme Being to be a little lower than heavenly beings called ‘angels’ (ps. 8:5) then our moral nature is more than certain brain wiring and the moral standard is the law of this Holy God.
Sankey points out that, “Many in neuroscience believe that all human experience will eventually be accounted for in terms of the activity of the brain” (p.163) Sankey points out that if we accept this view, we are headed for a “singly deterministic notion of self, devoid of even the possibility of making choices” (p. 163). While it is true that structure determines function, because humans are self-determined, the choices we make every day about what we eat, drink and even think are also restructuring our brains and impacting the way that they function. Ratey (2001, p. 17) states that, “Our own free will may be the strongest force directing the development of our brains.” We are all faced every day with decisions about how to care for our bodies and our minds. This is affected not only by what we ingest, but also by what we mentally consume.
‘Keep thy heart with all diligence,’ is the counsel of the wise man; ‘for out of it are the issues of life.’ As man ‘thinketh in his heart, so is he.’ The heart must be renewed by divine grace, or it will be in vain to seek for purity of life. He who attempts to build up a noble, virtuous character independent of the grace of Christ, is building his house upon the shifting sand…Guard well the avenues of the soul…avoid reading, seeing, or hearing that which will suggest impure thoughts (White, 1930, p. 286).
Thus, it is impossible to live a moral life without the working of God’s grace upon the heart. This process of moral change in the heart cannot be explained philosophically. Jesus said, “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.…Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit..” (John 3: 8 & 6, NIV) Sankey points out that, “Neuroscience cannot, of course, answer questions of right and wrong, but it can contribute to a deep understanding of personhood, decision making and social behavior, and it is important for moral and values educators.” (p. 168) It is equally important to the Christian educator to determine whether the moral and values education being given is ministering not only to the mind and body, but also to the spirit.
Reference:
Carlson, N. R., (2005) Foundations of physiological psychology, 6th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Holz, R. L., (2007) Scientist draw link between morality and brain’s wiring. The Wall Street Journal, Online Science Journal, Retrieved on May 20, 2009 from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117884235401499300.html#printMode
Iserbyt, C. T., (1999) The deliberate dumbing down of America. Ravenna, OH: Conscience Press.
Killen, M., & Smetana, J., (2007) The biology of morality: Human development and moral neuroscience. Human Development 50 (1) 241-243.
New King James Version, (1982) Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Panksepp, J., (2003) Textbook of biological psychiatry. Wilmington, DE: Wiley-Liss.
Ratey, J. (2001) A user’s guide to the brain. New York: Abacus.
Sankey, D., (2006) The neuronal, synaptic self: Having values and making choices. Journal of Moral Education 35 (2) 163-178.
Talmi, D., & Frith, C., (2007) Feeling right about doing right. Nature (April 19, 2007) 865-866.
White, E. G., (1930) Messages to young people. Nampa, ID: Pacific Press.
