Morality rarely involves active thinking

It’s been a while now since we got him (and you know who I’m talking about – big O, little b, L as in Laden).

But I can’t resist bringing up the subject again, as the whole affair provides such a tidy introduction to another discussion of morality and why we’re totally messed up in “thinking” about being moral agents.

That is, we don’t think our way to morality. We simply are. Or are not.

Why did so many fine folks feel so happy – dancing in the streets happy – over the rather tawdry ending to a shameful page in human history?

“Shameful,” I say, because his actions inspired us to engage in yet another inappropriate response to, yes, a despicable act.

How predictable. Rather than waging “war” through the intelligence community, which ultimately worked, we pushed on ahead into what I call Vietghanistan.

And as it did for the Soviets, it’s likewise just further bankrupted the USA, without accomplishing a single, solitary thing. Kind of like Iraq, you know.

Okey dokey. Now, with that in place, let me lay out a couple of dilemmas used by researchers who study moral behavior.

One is short and sweet. The much-beloved family dog – otherwise entirely healthy – dies suddenly from, oh, heart failure.

The family carefully considers the burial options, and instead, as a way of expressing how much they loved the pooch, decides to take him into their bodies.

Yep, they chow down, and not only is Buster tasty, but they feel closer to his spirit, saying, “He’ll always be a part of us.”

OK, so the psychologists state it a bit less flippantly. But you get the point.

Let’s try another: Five people are tied to a track with an out-of-control trolley barreling down on them, while one person is tied to an empty track.

You can’t save them all, but if you pull the lever you can divert the trolley to the other track – killing one to save five. Is this the right thing to do?

Now, let’s change it up a bit. You’re on a bridge above the trolley and there’s a very large man standing next to you. He’s big enough to stop the trolley, if you push him off, and you’ll save five people by doing so.

Do you give him a friendly shove?

How do you feel? What do you think?

Scenarios like these are deliberately designed so that “rationality” just plain runs smack into a wall.

For most people the initial emotional response regarding eating their dog is, “Gross!” And most will divert the trolley, killing just one person – but will not actively push a man over, even though the end result is five dead rather than one.

Modern neuroscience is beginning to discover some amazing things, long-suspected, that basically throw the entire 2,000-plus-year history of Western moral philosophy and theology under the bus.

Functional magnetic resonance image (fMRI) scanning and other tools are being used to check the workings of the brain by looking at mirror neurons (you smile, I smile), the prefrontal cortex (teenagers act like dopes because it’s as yet undeveloped), the nucleus accumbens and dopamine release (that feels good!) and a great deal else.

It turns out that we are, for better or worse, emotional “thinkers.” That is, in everything from picking out a preferred peanut butter to deciding which car or house (or spouse) to buy, we mostly “decide” before our conscious brains ever get into the act.

Our emotional intelligence, which allowed us to survive long enough for a much later evolutionary adaptation – rational thought and self-reflection – still pretty much runs the show. And its decisions are simple and decisive.

Kill Osama? Good! Eating your doggie? Yuck!