Christianity and the Psychology of Utilitarianism and the Biology of Moral

Until recently, research in cognitive studies have been based on the assumption that morals are learned behavior. Through positive and negative re-enforcement, decision making is reduced to a utilitarian process: What works within the context of the community is good, what doesn't work within the context of the community is bad.

One can see church teaching influenced by this utilitarian perspective, tying Christian doctrine to behavior that works within the context of the community.

I am not disputing the assertion that Christian doctrine promotes behavior that works within the context of the community.

However, I object to what is identified as the cause and what is identified as the effect.

Instead of community living being the origin of moral, the Bible clearly identifies God's moral as the origin of human creation.

According to Genesis, God created man in his own image, to be like Him, to have His nature. God wired into mankind His own moral values.

In fact, all of creation is designed to display God's moral.

Romans 1:18-20
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

His divine nature is not only seen but also understood from what has been made.

Recently, studies by Marc Hauser, a professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard University, point to the biologically hardwired nature of morals.

In his studies, subjects were given the following scenario:

A trolley looses its brakes and is rolling out of control down a hill. It is about to hit five people who can not get out of the way. Between the trolley and the five people is a track switch. If the trolley is switched to the alternate track, it would hit only one person. Is it acceptable to switch the track so that the trolley hits only one person? Almost everyone answer the question with "yes". Hitting one person is better than hitting five.

Then, the subjects were given a new scenario:

There is no switch between the trolley and the five people. However, there is a person large enough to stop the trolley if pushed in front of the trolley. Is it acceptable to push the large person in front of the trolley to save the five people? Almost everyone answered the question "no".

The results were consistent with people of varying religious belief, culture, ethnicity, age group, and social-economic class.

Occasionally, someone may answer yes for both. However, when dug deeper, the results are consistent with the norm.

e.g., Hauser's father is a medical doctor who is a stoic thinker. His initial response was yes for both since both scenarios resulted in saving five lives instead of one. So Hauser posed a scenario closer to home (in this case closer to work).

You have five patients who are in need of organ transplants but was unable to find matching donors. A healthy person with perfect match for all five patients. Would you sacrifice the life of the healthy donor to save the lives of the five?

His answer is, "Of course, not!"

Then, how can you push the large person in front of the trolley to save the five?

With that, Hauser's father changes his position.

This result proves that moral is not based on a purely utilitarian decision. Both switching the track and pushing the large person would result in sacrificing one life for five lives. Yet, one is acceptable while the other is not.

Moral decision making is not only not a purely utilitarian decision, it is not a purely Pavlovian learned behavior which is positively or negatively re-enforced.

In fact, when asked why the first is acceptable while the second is not, no one can give an answer. Part of moral decision making is biologically hardwired.

Another example of non-utilitarian response is the test of the self interest economy.

According to Adam Smith's "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", in a free market economy, the self interests of all traders would dictate the distribution of all resources.

In Professor Hauser's studies, subjects were given the roles of donor or recipient. Each donor was given a sum of money, out of which he or she must offer a portion to a recipient. The recipient can accept or reject the offer. If the recipient rejects the offer, the donor and the recipient would loose the entire sum.

If the market is driven by self-interest, all recipients would accept any offer greater than zero since the rejection would result in one not receiving anything; something is better than nothing.

The research, however, shows that unless the sum is greater than or equal to what the recipient considers is a fair distribution, the recipient would reject the offer. He or she would rather get nothing than to allow an unfair distribution to take place.

Once again, the decision is not based on an utilitarian response but on a built in sense of fairness.

Hauser found another departure from the traditional assumptions of cognitive studies. Until Hauser's studies, it was believe that we choose what we think is right. If we choose incorrectly, it is because we think incorrectly.

This assumption is counter to Biblical teaching.

Romans 7:15
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

Paul understands what is right and what is wrong. Yet, he confesses that his behavior does not reflect what he think is right.

Hauser's research agrees with Paul's experience. Many subjects are able to determine what is right and what is wrong (according to the hardwired responses). Yet, what the subject chooses to do may be different from what they think is morally right. Hauser concluded that determination of what is morally right and deciding what to do are two different processes that contribute to the decision making process.

Hauser was able to confirm this theory using brain imaging. He found two active regions in the brain when performing moral decision making. One region is the region associated with emotional response. The second is the one associated with computational processes.

By comparing the brain activities of "normal" subject with those of psychopaths, he found variations in the activities in the region associated with emotional responses. While the psychopaths have similar activates in the region associated with computational processes (utilitarian response), they lack the emotional brake which prevents them from doing what is morally wrong.

These findings mesh with Christian doctrinal teaching. Simply teaching what is right and what is wrong is not going to transform a person. The problem is not with one's computational decision making processes. The problem is with the emotional response. The problem is with where one's heart lies. This, only Christ can fix.