The Neurobiology of Morality
While in college, I wrote a short paper for a neuroscience course about the neurobiology of morality. Since my original reflection, I’ve thought quite a bit more about this topic. Here, I want to present some scientific highlights and start a conversation around this fascinating topic. Of course, I will be linking the articles I refer to, and if you have the time, I’d recommend checking them out. However, this post is not going to be a scientific review. For the sake of staying on topic and keeping things concise, much of what I’ll be referencing is simplified—again, if you’re interested in learning more, please read the articles! I’d be happy to chat about them or answer any questions, too.
Research
The 2013 article by Marazziti et al, offers an overview of scientific literature on morality using articles from 1980 to 2012. It highlights the widely held belief that humans have an innate sense of morality, pointing to studies on lesion trauma, dementia, and psychopathy to show how such changes in the brain affect morality. When compared to a “normal” brain, the research indicates possibility of a “moral center” in the brain. But of course, it’s not really that simple.
In a more recent article published in 2022, May et al outline new developments in how we study moral judgement using research from 1980 up to 2019. Newer studies solidify findings that the parts of the brain involved in moral decision making (limbic regions, portions of the pre-frontal cortex, and parts of the temporal lobe) are spread throughout the entirety of brain and are domains with multiple functions. Additionally, this paper underlines how these areas of the brain change rapidly throughout childhood, connecting our early experiences with a developing sense of moral reasoning. Though childhood seems to have a large impact, our moral identities can change after reaching maturity by ways of logic and reason.
Environmental Influence
While neuroscience is helping us understand moral judgement, I personally believe this is a subject that extends beyond science. While morality must involve pathways in the brain, it is difficult to argue against the epigenetic influence on how our sense of morality develops. These factors can be big and small, anything from our family units to the governments we live under, and every institution in between. Think about it, almost every company, governing body, and clique has their own set of values that they uphold to get clients, employees, members, or friends. Someone had to make a moral judgement about what values are more important than others, and which to display.
A great example, and unfortunately all too continuously relevant, is the United States’ indoctrination of people believing they need guns for self-defense. The U.S. government valued self-protection from its nascency, and unfortunately, a portion of the population thinks it’s immoral to place stricter restrictions around this “right”. Even though, perpetual gun violence and mass shootings are a uniquely American problem, meaning other countries’ governments do not impose such a belief, and actively impose beliefs that prioritize human lives over gun purchases.
This is an extremely heated example, but it highlights just how dissimilar people’s moral codes can be, and the impact of our environments on those beliefs. Generally (excluding discussion of increased gun laws, which should be a f**king no brainer), Right and Wrong are far more arbitrary than we make them out to be. Life is less black or white, and much, much, greyer.
Internal Knowing
We’ve determined how some aspects of morality are constructed, yet there is something undeniably natural and embedded about a moral sense. This is supported by research done in 2015 on moral judgement in infants, presented in the overview by May et al (refer to page 13). Babies, babies, can demonstrate moral judgement. How cool is that?!
This innate knowing persists throughout life, too. I often struggle to explain, as do many researchers, the impacts and accuracy of gut feelings and intuition. I don’t know if these things can be well-understood in a lab, but for me, my intuition has guided me toward some of the best decisions I’ve made, and I know I’m not the only one who has experienced this kind of force.
A Proposed Model of Morality
While not a formal representation of morality, I’ve developed my own understanding, modeling it after the immune system. This is the clearest depiction I can think of to explain changes in my moral code through the years.
Innate Morality: what our gut feels is right and wrong; this can vary between humans, but it offers that initial shield of safety. This is our “skin”, our first line of defense, when faced with a dilemma.
Adaptive Morality: this is a function of our exposure to…
People of different cultures
Different religions
Other lifestyles and ways of being
Varied beliefs about what constitutes “good” and “bad”
Those who look different than us
Differing abilities
Other fields of study
New and diverse environments
Here are some brief examples of innate and adaptive morality from my own experience:
Innate: Lying feels bad regardless of logic or reasoning. Something in me feels certain that any level of dishonesty is Wrong, while honest transparency is Right, no matter what the outcome is.
Adaptive: My exposure to families and peers who were raised in other faith communities, or without a faith community, showed me not everyone without a church lacks values of kindness and compassion. Kind people exist everywhere, and the label of “Christian” doesn’t tell me as much as I thought it did about someone’s character.
Meaning-Making
It seems to me, like some of the scientific research around morality is trying to put this concept in a box to appease a general lack of understanding about it. I think it would benefit all of us to see such widespread interest in moral reasoning as an opportunity to integrate knowledge across professional fields such as psychology, sociology, education, and public health, to name a few. I don’t think it would hurt to include religious scholars and these ideologies in the conversation, too, as many individuals have moral convictions by way of religiosity. I don’t think the evidence will ever be as “scientific” as most neuroscientists would like, but I firmly believe in the power of affirming lived experiences, using those stories as a “primary text” to further develop the knowledge, and understanding of morality.
