“The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.” -- C.K. Chesterton
In one of the candidate debates for President recently the issue of abortion was brought up. One question had to do with a woman’s decision-making power to terminate a pregnancy. Here is something for your consideration on that issue and some other current topics – it might explain why it is so hard for the sides to come to a compromise.
Author Jonah Lehrer has a chapter on the “Moral Mind” in his book, How We Decide. In the chapter, he discusses the connection between emotional vs. rational thinking as it relates to morality.
Lehrer’s premise is that we generally think that morality is based upon objective values which have a firm logical and legal foundation, arrived at by weighing competing claims – we think we act like dispassionate judges. Lehrer argues that neuroscience is leading us to a different conclusion – that we have feelings about whether something is right or wrong and when pressed to explain how we feel, we find (even invent) reasons to justify our feeling about what is moral. He credits Benjamin Franklin for the making the point succinctly: “So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to.”
Lehrer provides two examples in support of his proposition: John Wayne Gacy, and Julie and Mark.
John Wayne Gacy
John Wayne Gacy, Jr., also known as the Killer Clown, was an American serial killer and rapist. He sexually assaulted and murdered at least 33 teenage boys and young men between 1972 and 1978 in Cook County, Illinois. On May 9, 1994, Gacy was executed at the Stateville Correctional Center in Crest by lethal injection.
After his crimes were discovered, authorities learned that those who knew Gacy said he seemed to be gregarious and helpful. He was described as never losing his temper and never seeming to have lost control. He was active in his local community. He was appointed to serve upon the Norwood Park Township street lighting committee. He was active in Democratic Party politics and eventually earned the title of precinct captain. From 1975 until 1978 he served as director of Chicago's annual Polish Constitution Day Parade. Through his work with the parade, Gacy met and was photographed with then First Lady Rosalynn Carter on May 6, 1978. Rosalynn Carter signed one photo: "To John Gacy. Best wishes. Rosalynn Carter". The event later became an embarrassment to the United States Secret Service, as in the pictures taken Gacy can be seen wearing an "S" pin, indicating a person who has been given special clearance by the Secret Service.
Through his membership in a local Moose Club, Gacy became aware of and joined a "Jolly Joker" clown club whose members — dressed as clowns — would regularly perform at fundraising events and parades in addition to voluntarily entertaining hospitalized children. Gacy created his own performance characters: "Pogo the Clown" and "Patches the Clown" and performed as Pogo or Patches at numerous local parties, Democratic Party functions, charitable events, and at children's hospitals.
Lehrer points out that Gacy was diagnosed as a psychopath – a condition said to be applicable to ¼ of the prison population. Psychopaths, according to Lehrer, are prone to violence, but more generally, they have a specific brain malfunction: “psychopaths make poor – sometimes disastrous – moral choices.” They are bad decision-makers. He says: “When you act in a moral manner – when you recoil from violence, treat others fairly, and help strangers in need—you are making decisions that take people besides yourself into account. You are thinking about the feelings of others, sympathizing with their states of mind. This is what psychopaths can’t do.”
Gacy, as a psychopath, was incapable of experiencing regret, sadness, or joy. He felt nothing – he was emotionally empty. When normal people lie, they exhibit the classic symptoms of nervousness (sweating, higher blood pressure, higher pulse rates) but for psychopaths, the lack of emotions is what causes dangerous behavior. Dishonesty doesn’t make psychopaths anxious; in fact some studies report that when psychopaths lie or are shown images of violence, their blood pressure and pulse rates go down – those things seem to have a calming effect.
Psychopaths are purely rational, they decide to satisfy their desires by weighing risks and benefits without regard to the affect on others. Psychopaths are purely selfish; when they seem to be acting to benefit others, it is out of their assessment that those acts will further their own wants, desires and wishes. That is why psychopaths are so dangerous; they lack the capacity to feel the emotional aspect that something is wrong.
Julie and Mark
As a further explanation of the emotional aspect of feelings about right and wrong, take the hypothetical scenario of Julie and Mark utilized by psychology professor Jonathan Haidt.
Julie and Mark are adults, sister and brother. One night while on vacation, after dining and drinking too much, Julie and Mark decide to have sex. Julie is on the pill and Mark uses a condom just in case. They swear to each other that they will never tell anyone what they have done. After a while, they conclude that what they did brought them even closer. Did Julie and Mark do something wrong?
If you are like most people you say “yes”. When asked to explain, respondents commonly cite risks of children with genetic abnormalities and the possibility that the relationship will be damaged; but the hypothetical is to the contrary. Haidt found that people continued to find “rational” reasons for finding it wrong. Each time those reasons were struck down “logically”. Respondents did not concede that Julie and Mark had acted morally; eventually respondents resorted to simply “it’s wrong, it’s disgusting,” etc.
Haidt says that this experiment highlights that people know (feel) something is morally wrong – sibling sex is terrible idea – but it is hard to rationally defend moral positions logically because relegating your personal interests in favor of others is not logical.
Practical issues
At one time, the “norm” was the abortion was wrong and, therefore, laws were passed to limit it. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied legal analysis and rational application of the right to privacy to conclude that most restrictions on abortion were wrong. The Supreme Court has decided that the right to privacy entitles a woman to decide whether, and how, to take account of another’s (a fetus) life, any attempt to impede on that decision-making is subject to strict scrutiny. Of course, there are those who still “feel” that abortion is the termination of a human life which is entitled to equal status as the mother’s right to privacy; i.e. that it is immoral and ought to be unlawful.
Similarly, at one time, the norm was that “marriage” was limited to one man and one woman. The Supreme Court has applied legal analysis to conclude that restrictions on same sex marriage were wrong. Nevertheless, there are those who “feel” that same sex marriage is wrong, i.e. that it is immoral and ought to be unlawful.
Justice Potter Stewart once said of pornography that it was hard to define but “I know it when I see it.” It was a famous and rare admission about the difficulty of explaining some decisions. Mostly, we demand of judges that they be logical and make decisions which can be explained on rational bases, not because they personally think something is right or wrong. For those judges whose feelings about the morality of something match the logic, there is no problem. But, sometimes judges permit or prohibit something based on logic because they simply cannot explain “logically” why the opposite position is more moral (feelings are not enough). Unfortunately, the logic of a decision soon becomes the basis for a new “norm” which then leads to feelings in the direction of the new norm of right or wrong.
I have heard “logical” arguments for the legalization of euthanasia, pedophilia, plural marriage, incestual marriage, abolition of the death penalty, the elimination of personal possession of any firearm, etc. and I know there are some countries where one or more of those is not considered wrong or disgusting. Do those things seem to be out of “norm” for you: Do you feel they are wrong or disgusting? Do you have or feel there is a growing feeling of normalcy/acceptance about those things?
In one of the candidate debates for President recently the issue of abortion was brought up. One question had to do with a woman’s decision-making power to terminate a pregnancy. Here is something for your consideration on that issue and some other current topics – it might explain why it is so hard for the sides to come to a compromise.
Author Jonah Lehrer has a chapter on the “Moral Mind” in his book, How We Decide. In the chapter, he discusses the connection between emotional vs. rational thinking as it relates to morality.
Lehrer’s premise is that we generally think that morality is based upon objective values which have a firm logical and legal foundation, arrived at by weighing competing claims – we think we act like dispassionate judges. Lehrer argues that neuroscience is leading us to a different conclusion – that we have feelings about whether something is right or wrong and when pressed to explain how we feel, we find (even invent) reasons to justify our feeling about what is moral. He credits Benjamin Franklin for the making the point succinctly: “So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to.”
Lehrer provides two examples in support of his proposition: John Wayne Gacy, and Julie and Mark.
John Wayne Gacy
John Wayne Gacy, Jr., also known as the Killer Clown, was an American serial killer and rapist. He sexually assaulted and murdered at least 33 teenage boys and young men between 1972 and 1978 in Cook County, Illinois. On May 9, 1994, Gacy was executed at the Stateville Correctional Center in Crest by lethal injection.
After his crimes were discovered, authorities learned that those who knew Gacy said he seemed to be gregarious and helpful. He was described as never losing his temper and never seeming to have lost control. He was active in his local community. He was appointed to serve upon the Norwood Park Township street lighting committee. He was active in Democratic Party politics and eventually earned the title of precinct captain. From 1975 until 1978 he served as director of Chicago's annual Polish Constitution Day Parade. Through his work with the parade, Gacy met and was photographed with then First Lady Rosalynn Carter on May 6, 1978. Rosalynn Carter signed one photo: "To John Gacy. Best wishes. Rosalynn Carter". The event later became an embarrassment to the United States Secret Service, as in the pictures taken Gacy can be seen wearing an "S" pin, indicating a person who has been given special clearance by the Secret Service.
Through his membership in a local Moose Club, Gacy became aware of and joined a "Jolly Joker" clown club whose members — dressed as clowns — would regularly perform at fundraising events and parades in addition to voluntarily entertaining hospitalized children. Gacy created his own performance characters: "Pogo the Clown" and "Patches the Clown" and performed as Pogo or Patches at numerous local parties, Democratic Party functions, charitable events, and at children's hospitals.
Lehrer points out that Gacy was diagnosed as a psychopath – a condition said to be applicable to ¼ of the prison population. Psychopaths, according to Lehrer, are prone to violence, but more generally, they have a specific brain malfunction: “psychopaths make poor – sometimes disastrous – moral choices.” They are bad decision-makers. He says: “When you act in a moral manner – when you recoil from violence, treat others fairly, and help strangers in need—you are making decisions that take people besides yourself into account. You are thinking about the feelings of others, sympathizing with their states of mind. This is what psychopaths can’t do.”
Gacy, as a psychopath, was incapable of experiencing regret, sadness, or joy. He felt nothing – he was emotionally empty. When normal people lie, they exhibit the classic symptoms of nervousness (sweating, higher blood pressure, higher pulse rates) but for psychopaths, the lack of emotions is what causes dangerous behavior. Dishonesty doesn’t make psychopaths anxious; in fact some studies report that when psychopaths lie or are shown images of violence, their blood pressure and pulse rates go down – those things seem to have a calming effect.
Psychopaths are purely rational, they decide to satisfy their desires by weighing risks and benefits without regard to the affect on others. Psychopaths are purely selfish; when they seem to be acting to benefit others, it is out of their assessment that those acts will further their own wants, desires and wishes. That is why psychopaths are so dangerous; they lack the capacity to feel the emotional aspect that something is wrong.
Julie and Mark
As a further explanation of the emotional aspect of feelings about right and wrong, take the hypothetical scenario of Julie and Mark utilized by psychology professor Jonathan Haidt.
Julie and Mark are adults, sister and brother. One night while on vacation, after dining and drinking too much, Julie and Mark decide to have sex. Julie is on the pill and Mark uses a condom just in case. They swear to each other that they will never tell anyone what they have done. After a while, they conclude that what they did brought them even closer. Did Julie and Mark do something wrong?
If you are like most people you say “yes”. When asked to explain, respondents commonly cite risks of children with genetic abnormalities and the possibility that the relationship will be damaged; but the hypothetical is to the contrary. Haidt found that people continued to find “rational” reasons for finding it wrong. Each time those reasons were struck down “logically”. Respondents did not concede that Julie and Mark had acted morally; eventually respondents resorted to simply “it’s wrong, it’s disgusting,” etc.
Haidt says that this experiment highlights that people know (feel) something is morally wrong – sibling sex is terrible idea – but it is hard to rationally defend moral positions logically because relegating your personal interests in favor of others is not logical.
Practical issues
At one time, the “norm” was the abortion was wrong and, therefore, laws were passed to limit it. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied legal analysis and rational application of the right to privacy to conclude that most restrictions on abortion were wrong. The Supreme Court has decided that the right to privacy entitles a woman to decide whether, and how, to take account of another’s (a fetus) life, any attempt to impede on that decision-making is subject to strict scrutiny. Of course, there are those who still “feel” that abortion is the termination of a human life which is entitled to equal status as the mother’s right to privacy; i.e. that it is immoral and ought to be unlawful.
Similarly, at one time, the norm was that “marriage” was limited to one man and one woman. The Supreme Court has applied legal analysis to conclude that restrictions on same sex marriage were wrong. Nevertheless, there are those who “feel” that same sex marriage is wrong, i.e. that it is immoral and ought to be unlawful.
Justice Potter Stewart once said of pornography that it was hard to define but “I know it when I see it.” It was a famous and rare admission about the difficulty of explaining some decisions. Mostly, we demand of judges that they be logical and make decisions which can be explained on rational bases, not because they personally think something is right or wrong. For those judges whose feelings about the morality of something match the logic, there is no problem. But, sometimes judges permit or prohibit something based on logic because they simply cannot explain “logically” why the opposite position is more moral (feelings are not enough). Unfortunately, the logic of a decision soon becomes the basis for a new “norm” which then leads to feelings in the direction of the new norm of right or wrong.
I have heard “logical” arguments for the legalization of euthanasia, pedophilia, plural marriage, incestual marriage, abolition of the death penalty, the elimination of personal possession of any firearm, etc. and I know there are some countries where one or more of those is not considered wrong or disgusting. Do those things seem to be out of “norm” for you: Do you feel they are wrong or disgusting? Do you have or feel there is a growing feeling of normalcy/acceptance about those things?