Advertisement

An Evolutionary and Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective on Moral Modularity

  • Jelle De Schrijver
Chapter

In the 19th century, the case of Phineas Gage suggested that our moral sense could be located in a particular area of the brain. Damage to a part of the prefrontal cortex seemed to have selectively bereft the railroad worker of his moral faculties, resulting in lawless and anti-social behaviour. Additional studies revealed that behaviour of Phineas Gage and patients with similar brain damage can be further characterized by the disturbance of social behaviour, a diminished response of social emotions such as compassion and failures in non-moral decision-making or planning (Anderson, Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1999). As the damage is not selective, the “moral” misbehaviour syndrome is apparently not confined to the moral sphere alone. This leads to the conclusion that there is no discrete “moral centre” or single morality module in the brain (Greene, 2005).

Keywords

Conditioned Stimulus Moral Judgment Unconditioned Stimulus Evolutionary Psychology Aversive Conditioning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The writing of this chapter was supported by the Research Foundation – Flanders.

References

  1. Anderson, S. W., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1999). Impairment of social and moral behavior related to early damage in human prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2(11), 1032–1037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (1996). Failure to respond autonomically to anticipated future outcomes following damage to prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 6(2), 215–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair, J., Marsh, A. A., Finger, E., Blair, K. S., & Luo, J. (2006). Neuro-cognitive systems involved in morality. Philosophical Explorations, 9(1), 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair, J. (2003). Neurobiological basis of psychopathy. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 5–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair, J. (2003). Facial expressions, their communicatory functions and neuro-cognitive substrates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 561–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blair, J. (2005). Applying a cognitive neuroscience perspective to the disorder of psychopathy. Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 865–891.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolender, J. (2003). The genealogy of the moral modules. Minds and Machines, 13(2), 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolhuis, J. J., & Macphail, E. M. (2001). A critique of the neuroecology of learning and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(10), 426–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2004). The evolution of strong reciprocity: Cooperation in heterogeneous populations. Theoretical Population Biology, 65(1), 17–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain: New York: G.P: Putnam.Google Scholar
  13. Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Frank, R., Galaburda, A. M., & Damasio, A. R. (1994). The return of gage, phineas – clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient. Science, 264(5162), 1102–1105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duchaine, B., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2001). Evolutionary psychology and the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11(2), 225–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Everitt, B. J., Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., & Robbins, T. W. (2003). Appetitive behavior: impact of amygdala-dependent mechanisms of emotional learning. Annual New York Academy of Sciences, 985, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  17. Flombaum, J. I., Santos, L. R., & Hauser, M. D. (2002). Neuroecology and psychological modularity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(3), 106--108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greene, J. D. (2005). 19. Cognitive neuroscience and the structure of the moral mind. In P. Carruthers et al. (Eds.), The Innate Mind (Vol. 1, pp. 338–353). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 322–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene, J. D. (2008). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology, vol. 3: The neuroscience of morality: emotion, disease, and development (Vol. 3pp. 35--79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Greene, J. D., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66.Google Scholar
  25. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2005). The moral mind: How 5 sets of innate moral intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The Innate Mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367–392). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, 1–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hauser, M., Young, L., & Cushman, F. (2008). Reviving Rawls’ linguistic analogy operative principles and the causal structure of moral actions. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), The biology and psychology of morality (pp. 107–143). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kennair, L. E. O. (2002). Evolutionary psychology: An emerging integrative meta-theory for psychological science and practice. Human Nature Review, 2, 17–61.Google Scholar
  30. LeDoux, J. (1998). The emotional brain. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  31. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 270(1517), 819–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  33. Moll, J., Zahn, R., Oliveira-Souza, R., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2005). The neural basis of human moral cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(10), 799–809.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinker, S. (1998). How the mind works: New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  35. Prinz, J. (2007). Is morality innate? In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), The evolution of morality (Vol. 1, pp. 367–406). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Samuels, R. (2000). Massively modular minds: Evolutionary psychology and cognitive architecture. In P. Carruthers (Ed.), Evolution and the human mind. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods in ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1995). Mapping the evolved functional organization of mind and brain. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1185–1197). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., & Barrett, H. C. (2005). Resolving the debate on innate ideas: Learnability constraints and the evolved interpenetration of motivational and conceptual functions. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and content (pp. 305–337). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Moral SciencesGhent UniversityGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations