Last night at the World Science Festival, philosophers, scientists and ethicists disagreed about the nature of morality and showed a surprising disconnect about the consequences of immoral behavior. While neuroethicist Patricia Churchland lamented our country's lack of morality in not questioning our leaders in the run up to the Iraq war, philosopher Daniel Dennett said that in the future, neurobiology could conceivably track social impulses. If you are the kind of person, described by neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, who has childhood damage to the prefrontal cortex, you are unlikely to memorize rules, unable to express guilt, embarrassment or shame and are without compassion for others. Dennett said that if we could predict this kind of behavior and could correct for it, people would be "morally obligated to take that prescription." A frightening proposition where were are morally blind to a government that, according to Scott McCellan and a growing army of others, lies to us.
In another, quite bizarre, statement, Marc Hauser asked the dumbfounding question, "Is it morally wrong to masterbate in your own home with a chicken or is it just icky?" To which, Newsweek moderator John Meacham said, "How much do they pay you at Harvard?" Hauser was making the larger point that the mind will reward and punish a person for things that aren't necessarily moral issues and we still are unsure of how the brain knows what is moral and what is not. But his idea that sex with a chicken is only icky and not immoral is not exactly conclusive--especially from the chicken's point of view. While Dennett said morality is not linked to a belief in God, the idea that ancient biblical strictures against sex with animals were in place because it might make us less than human never came up.--Sherry Mazzocchi
Comments