I read the article, "Is Morality Natural" on Newsweek.com and found it very interesting.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158760
Science is tracing the biological roots of our intuitive sense of what is right and wrong. It is suggested by studies that an unwritten moral grammar has been implemented in our universe. The studies also imply that this "moral grammar" has been designed to generate fast, intuitive and universally held judgments of right and wrong.
I found this article to be one of the most interesting articles I've ever read. Honestly! I was not surprised that the three hypothetical situations generated similar responses across diverse groups of people. I think humans as "individuals" have a whole lot more in common with each other than we want to admit.
Einstein once said, "Our seperation of each other is an optical illusion of conciousness."
In my opinion, we are all one. I'm not sure in what way I mean that but I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're all in this together for one reason or another. This article is definitely something to think about. I'm not sure the human race will ever discover the meaning to life or spirituality but studying the topic definitely expands our thought process!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This article was really interesting to me as well. I thought the part about how people's emotions don't tend to get in the way of making a moral decision is believeable. Although I was thinking to myself "I could never suffocate a baby!?" I guess when it comes down to it...it's a different situation and you go into a "do what you have to do" mind-set.
I came to a slightly different conclusion after reading the article. The hypothetical scenarios present clear-cut outcomes (A and B answer choices)that would be unknown to someone actually faced with a tough decision. For example, how could someone possibly know a dead man's organs would save three lives? What if the vehicles transporting the organs crashed, thus contaminating them? Although I agree people act more "survival of the fittest" and make decisions with the greater good in mind versus doing what's right at a specific moment in time, it's unfair to base a theory on what-ifs and likelihoods. My other criticism of the article is where it states "emotions play the strongest role in influencing our actions." I don't disagree, but then why do so many people witness travesties and do nothing? News reports are littered with stories about bystanders who did nothing but watch someone in need of help. I think if I saw an injured man laying in a busy street, I'd do more than look - stunned or not. Overall, I think morality comes down to common sense, how you were raised and your life experiences.
What goes around-comes around, karma, deja-vous, waking life~ all these things came to mind as I read the article. It also reminded me of a story I heard years ago about a man who worked as the bridge controller. He was in charge of lifting the bridge gates to let big ships pass by.
One day he brought his young son to work with him. The son wandered off and accidentally got stuck playing around on the bridges hinges. The father noticed a cruise ship coming their way. The cruise ship sounded the horn to signal the lifting of the birdge gates, but the young boy was stuck in the hinge. The man had to decide whether to risk a boat crash and save his son, or lift the gates to prevent a crash which would cause his son's death. I can't even fathom what I would do in that situation. Good article!
Post a Comment