Opinion – Luciano Melo: The moral brain

In 2015, in the US, the Turing company acquired the rights to manufacture Daraprim, a traditional and essential medicine for the treatment of potentially fatal protozoal infections. Weeks later, the price of the drug increased by 5000%. With this measure against public health, the CEO of Turing was dubbed the most hated man in the world, an immoral. But there are those who defended it, after all, companies only survive to manufacture the indispensable if they make a profit for their shareholders, this is the logic. Human morality is an agent of indignation, but it serves certain interests.

The Doctor. Kellogg (February 26, 1852 – December 14, 1943) in addition to his cornflakes, advised people not to masturbate. He said there was scientific evidence that plagues, wars or smallpox did not cause such serious disasters to humanity as the pernicious habit does. For the doctor, masturbation was immoral and had harmful consequences. In the classical period, however, some openly advocated masturbation, advocating that the practice increased strength and fertility. Human morality is a strong creed, but it is not entirely inflexible.

Conceptualizing the foundations of moral judgment is a philosophical theme, not exhausted. It is here to simplify, the moral judgment is the differentiation of good from evil. We experience our moral convictions as objective truths, the certainty of right and wrong.

Morality forms shareable principles, often understood as consequences of universal values, that unite people in their particular groups. Therefore it legitimates behaviors and motivates actions. Against those who commit immorality, we cast blame and punishment, they outrage us, and cause us intense and negative feelings. Moral judgments incite emotions and bring out solid points of view, ingredients for the creation of rites that can protect or destroy.

As our convictions stick to our core, they reduce spaces for negotiations, and often generate impasses and polarizations. There are historical and political consequences of these divisions, such as stigmatization, dehumanization and aggression against those who do not share the same convictions.

Especially during political disputes, electoral propaganda incites moral judgments. Be it the moral that defends underprivileged classes, or the one that exalts values ​​supposedly pillars of good civilization. But the elected, not surprisingly, almost always fails to defend theoretically or actually valuable flags, the reasons are several, particular interests, dishonesty or incompetence.

This inconsistency between the results achieved and the beliefs defended creates a mental discomfort, named as cognitive dissonance, which will be appeased with adaptations of discourses to shape beliefs. Human morality is rigid, almost irreducible and non-negotiable, but it can bend to needs. Soon, a presidential candidate who previously vociferated against the immoralities perpetrated by the legislative chamber, will change his speech as soon as he wins his seat, as he will be dependent on Congress. A scapegoat will be designed to adjust the speech. The STF, foreign elites, or a cursed inheritance can become the justification for insoluble ills. Politicians at the top of power put layers of people (and ignorance) between themselves and their dirty deeds, thus disassociating themselves from the bad practices they command, and maintaining good appearances, at least for some faithful.

But no matter, morality will remain a central aspect of humanity. Our memories built on past events involving morals, build a positive egoic vision. We don’t really understand how the brain operates morality, and also how it reacts when it breaks with it. But we have some clues, the cognition of right and wrong judgments is widely distributed throughout the brain, in particular, frontal areas that measure rewards and punishments, and also predict the consequences of attitudes, plus parietal areas associated with empathy. But we don’t know the reasons why our moral convictions change as new information is assimilated, for better or for worse.

References:

1. Schein C, Gray K. The Theory of Dyadic Morality: Reinventing Moral Judgment by Redefining Harm. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 2018 Feb 1;22(1):32–70.
2. Feinberg M, Kovacheff C, Teper R, Inbar Y. Understanding the process of moralization: How eating meat becomes a moral issue. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2019;117(1):50–72.
3. Feinberg M, Willer R, Kovacheff C. The activist’s dilemma: Extreme protest actions reduce popular support for social movements. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020;119(5):1086–111.
4. Chen C, Martínez RM, Chen YC, Fan YT, Cheng Y. The neural mediators of moral attitudes and behaviors. Behav Brain Res. 2022 Jul 26;430:113934.