Bahá’í World/Volume 33/Science and Morality

←Previous

The Bahá’í World Volume 33

Next→

Proofread once

[Page 177]

Science and Morality

Graham Walker views science and morality as a pathway to social integration.

Morals—the principles which guide personal behavior—equate with ethical theory which, according to the renowned German philosopher ‎Emmanuel Immanuel‎ Kant, should ideally be based on universal values. Morals may be derived from any combination of natural law, philosophy, altruism, utilitarianism, deontology, and theology, so it is unsurprising that currently there is no universal moral system. It is this relativity which is the source of conflict. This essay looks at how that relativity could be reduced.

Moral principles change with time, and morals from previous ages are not always appropriate to current situations.¹ For example, 2,000 years ago the population of the earth was 200 million and the doubling time was one thousand years, so it was “moral” to go forth and multiply, notwithstanding some of the social implications. Today, the population is around 6.5 billion and doubling time is 50 years, so few would consider the same exhortation to be moral now. Times have changed, but some still proscribe contraception, in spite of the starvation of huge numbers.

Morals are also gender dependent. We are aware of the different male and female roles which society has shaped, only some of which are supportable. Nevertheless, it is now widely accepted that this

177 [Page 178]178 THE BAHÁ'Í WORLD 2004-2005 division of labor should not confer different civil or human rights and that the concept of "universal morals" should apply equally to both genders. As cities become increasingly multiracial, cultural moral relativity is causing problems. For example, imbibing alcohol is seen as im- moral hedonism by one but as a harmless pleasure-almost a rite of passage to another; the thigh-high skirt and bare midriff are wanton to some but an innocent fashion to others; honor killings and the stoning to death of female (not male) adulterers are reasoned disincentives to protect morality in some cultures, while in others adultery is accepted, but not condoned. Morality can also be numerically as well as culturally dependent. As Steven Pinker comments in The Blank Slate: If only one person in the world held down a terrified, screaming little girl, cut off her genitals with a septic blade and sewed her up leaving a small hole for urine and menstrual flow, the only question would be how severely should that person be punished. But when thousands commit the same crime on millions of girls, the enormity of the act is not magnified a million times. It is instead, attributed to culture and magically becomes less, not more horrible.² The field of morality is of shifting sand, and its principles are sometimes artfully applied. The moralizing of political or ethnic matters has frequently been utilized to licence aggression against those with whom we disagree-with catastrophic consequences.³ Interpretation of holy scriptures by the learned for the purpose of manipulation of the public is commonplace, and healthy skepticism is always appropriate when politicians moralize. Science and moral relativity Science can help not only in dispelling suspicion, misinterpretation, and harmful dogma, but also in providing some evidential basis of a consistent, nondenominational morality founded on universal values. This is not a new ontology, as “macro" aspects of this relationship between science and morality surround us and are obvious and his- toric. For example, promiscuity is related to divorce, illegitimacy, [Page 179]SCIENCE AND MORALITY 179 and sexually transmitted disease; greed and intolerance are related to violence and war. It is clear, then, that social evils are related to the absence of moral values. In the natural world, on the other hand, if one observes the holistic organization of ants and termites, one sees that these minute insects create a stable, productive community which would be impossible without high levels of communication, cooperation, and altruism. Their colonies have organized division of labor; foragers selflessly share information with others regarding the location of food; there is self-sacrifice in the protection of the community. All of these behaviors benefit the colony, and all are characteristics of civil society. (On the downside, it has to be said that the industrious and social ant has been bypassed by evolution, not having changed in 20 million years.) These two simple examples show that we only need to observe our surroundings to see the effect of morality and its absence. What is new and less self-evident is the "micro" aspect of the relationship between science and morality: Information from the enhanced understanding of genetics, neurology, and physiology has been made possible by the rapid acceleration of technology. For ex- ample, science is able to explain the microbiological cause of sexually transmitted disease-and therefore the relation to promiscuity, which moral teaching forbids. Similarly, the intellectual disintegration as- sociated with drug abuse is explicable by the neurological degradation visible on brain scans. The effects of the media on child behavior become clear when the large numbers are analyzed by computer. In short, science makes the case for morality more believable. Science, however, must also be seen as a relative truth. Some of what we positively believe as undeniable scientific truth today will be discarded in the next 10 years, in the same way as we have discarded some scientific "certainties" of yesteryear. Science and morality both share relativity, but where moral relativity is the cause of disagree- ment and even extreme violence, scientific relativity is accepted and statistically incorporated into thresholds of certainty.4 Starting at the beginning It is said that man is between two infinities: the universe on one hand and his atomic components on the other. Our natural inquisitiveness [Page 180]drives a strong desire to understand this relationship and its evolution. The question of "the beginning" is perhaps best characterized as "Big Bang versus Genesis"-and, for most scientists, there is no contest. However, cosmological studies of the astounding symmetry and balance in this aspect of reality indicate to some that the chance theory of the Big Bang and evolution is statistically unacceptable and that there must be a supreme being and a grand design. Many eminent scientists ascribe to this explanation.

To look at one example in support of this perspective, there is an infinitesimally small chance that the carbon-based organic chemistry of all living matter happened by accident. From the initial moment of the expansion of the original matter (an unknown which both atheists and deists must take on faith), the particles began to form simple atoms such as hydrogen and helium, with stable nuclei and electrons. These atoms, under the influence of precise pressures and temperatures of the cosmic furnace, formed different, more complex molecules. The force of gravity accurately balanced the force of expansion. Paul Davies, professor of physics at Imperial College, London, calculated that the relation of these two forces had to be precise to 100 for the universe to exist. This balance induced the formation of stars, which associated into galaxies. The compression of the material of stars caused increased temperatures and fusion of atoms to produce a greater variety of molecules of greater complexity such as nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon. The subsequent exploding supernovas distributed these further afield. After each explosion, gravity again caused the formation of more galaxies with stars, planets, and, in our case, sun and moon, in what we know as "the Milky Way." Alternating light and darkness, warmth and cold through a 24-hour period is secondary to the harmonious spinning and orbiting of the earth amongst planets held perfectly in balance by gravity.6

From this seemingly ordered beginning evolved man and the uncounted varieties of plants and animals based on carbon chemistry. But the natural rate of triple collision of three helium particles to form one carbon inside a star is rare and would not produce the amount of carbon necessary for our particular chemistry. It just so happens that a phenomenon known as carbon resonance augments the collision rate, resulting in exactly the ratio of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen needed to provide the building blocks for organic life as [Page 181]we know it. "Coincidences" of this sort are innumerable throughout the physical world.

Such evidence supports the anthropic principle which postulates that for us to exist, the universe has to be precisely as it is. But this begs the question, why should it be precisely as it is for us to exist? Sir Fred Hoyle, the eminent astronomer," stated that the calculation of the chance of all of these "coincidences" is so great that it puts the question of a "super-intellect" beyond doubt, and if God (supreme intellect, grand designer) exists, then the moral attributes ascribed to such a deity by prophets gain credence and authority. Of course, we might accept this proof of God's existence without accepting the prophets as "official messengers," but if the world is created by God, then every creation comes from His design, including prophets.

How we recognize a true prophet is difficult to define. There have been numerous seers, mystics, minor prophets, and philosophers who have had some influence on human progress, but perhaps one of the defining characteristics by which a true or major prophet is objectively recognized is the degree of social turbulence that follows the revelation. The main religions that have appeared throughout recorded time are all associated with a named prophet, upheaval, and social reorganization. Jesus brought tolerance and forgiveness and reduced internecine tribal warfare, and Muḥammad elevated learning to the status of prayer, helped to change the existing power structure, and sped academic progress in the Middle East and thence the West.⁹

Is this logic of design sustained if we look at the other end of our two infinities? The matrix of symbiotic processes that secure our biosphere also seems too complicated to have arisen by chance. The wonder of the human organism is difficult to accept as simply the result of a series of millions of mitotic accidents starting from an ad hoc agglomeration of carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. The atoms we have inherited from the primordial explosion make up our molecules of varied degrees of complexity, from simple salt to hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is a wonder of nature itself-able to absorb oxygen during inhalation, transport it, and liberate it at the extremities where it picks up carbon dioxide to transport it back to the lungs and release it by exhalation. The beautiful, ultra-complex double helix DNA of each of our cells controls a microscopic factory with specific products and [Page 182]functions, control mechanisms, signal emitters, and receivers. Groups of such cells cooperate to form an organ that works in harmony with other organs for the good of the whole being, 10 a whole which can respond successfully to a spectrum of extremes of temperature, of varied oxygen pressure in the atmosphere, of hydration, and nutrition. To many, this complexity and order, with its built-in repair, protection, and servo-mechanisms, indicate a supreme designer, not chance. Although science explains mechanisms but not rationale, it appears logical, on statistical grounds, to imply again the existence of a grand conductor of this symphony of perfection.

Hard and soft science

Hard science is the irrefutable stuff of laboratories; it is measurement that can be tested by others anywhere in the world and allied to the accepted scientific and mathematical principles applied by all scientists. In contrast, soft science may be thought of as observation that leads through interpretation to a more or less reliable conclusion. Its substrate is not scientific measurement but statistics, which make the conclusions sound. For example, the incidence of sexually transmitted disease, illegitimacy, depression, suicide, and economic status in a large number of people from widely differing backgrounds 40 years ago was compared to that in a similar number of people and similar groups today. It was found that all of these parameters had increased simultaneously with a significant rise in wealth. Therefore, it is sound to conclude that material wealth does not buy health or happiness—a theme familiar in religious doctrines and borne out by sociology."

In the same vein of soft science, the historical evidence of human evolution does not reflect an altruism driving the creation of empires. Some empires, however, proved more long lived than others, and the more durable empires are characterized by the cohesive power of a civilizing philosophy. Contrast, for example, the legacy of the Mongol and Roman Empires. In 1259 CE, the former extended from Poland and Hungary in the west to China in the east, embracing Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Russia, China, Vietnam, Tibet, Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Persia, and Iraq. These countries were subdued by the ferocity of the warlike Mongols until the death of [Page 183]Tamerlane in 1405 CE, when the empire disintegrated because of its failure to unite peoples and create institutions. At no time during its 150 years was there peace, and there is little in the way of a Mongolian inheritance. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, embraced all the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, a smaller area but with a greater population. The jurisdiction lasted from 12 to 565 CE, and after Emperor Augustus there were 200 years of peace and prosperity among disparate cultures that had been united by a common language (Latin) and stabilized by international trade, the popular pursuit of knowledge, the justice and civil rights of Roman law, and strong institutions balancing government. The fall of the Roman Empire resulted in retrogression in some areas where the institutions were not sustained, but the legacy is evident in the conquered countries to this day, in their judicial systems, art, culture, and Latin usage. The civilizing effect of the Roman Empire is clearly related to the relatively moral and ethical basis of its administration, in contradistinction to the brutal but transient influence of the Mongols. Similar bases of communal stability, which have been observed in primates, will be discussed later.

The survival advantage of morality

This is soft science but nevertheless worthy of consideration. Not only does an overtly material existence fail to return the happiness sought, but it is also related to a shorter life span. Conversely, moral and spiritual beings will be at less risk of various illnesses such as sexually transmitted disease, diseases of addiction, accidents, depression, atypical pains, and obesity with the commensurate risk of heart attack and stroke. Studies show that people with such an outlook have lower divorce rates, less stress, suffer less violence, are less likely to commit suicide, and suffer less distress when dying.

The appeal of a scientific basis to morality is multifaceted. Science is replicatable and objective, and its methodology is therefore a cohesive force that unites all scientists. It is respected as a source of knowledge and unbiased opinion in the public at large. More important, it supports a common moral perspective for every culture, religion, and race by helping to dispel superstition and fear. While it may only explain small sectors of reality, it contributes [Page 184]understanding of those aspects not explained by religion. Herein lies not only the compatibility of religion and science but also their mutual dependence.12

Neuroscience

Let us now examine some aspects of the neurology of morality. Is there, for example, a brain center for morality? Is it intelligence dependent? Is it inherited or inducible, or both? In other words, this is the old question of whether nature or nurture predicates behavioral development.

In the medical field, a modern investigatory tool called a molecular resonance imaging scan, or MRI, can be modified to show which areas of the brain are functioning. If functional MRI brain scans are taken of patients being anesthetized, activity areas progressively close down in all parts of the brain as the depth of anesthesia increases. The loss of consciousness is not associated with inactivity in any particular area. Since moral deliberation relies on conscious thought, we can conclude that morality is not related to a center but to the whole network of neurones (nerve fibers) and synapses (junctions); in other words, it is spatially diffuse. Using the same scanner, we can also observe that certain areas are active with certain thought processes. For example, an offensive or frightening image will light up a particular area called the amygdala. In computing terms, this is a small but powerful ROM center that does not react in the same way to pleasant images. More interestingly, even if the images are shown too quickly to be recognized or when the volunteer is distracted, the amygdala still lights up, implying that offense generates an emotional reaction of which we are unaware, as well as a conscious reaction. This unconscious response occurs at a level that is instinctive or non-mediated (i.e., not processed by conscious thought). It seems to be common to all those tested so far and is probably the neurological basis of the ethical sentiments we all have in common—the universals of humanness. Seeing an abandoned baby in the snow or the deformed or the injured and starving all provoke the feeling of empathy, which Ray Dolan, professor of cognitive neurology at the Institute of Neurology in London, describes as "non-mediated reactions"—the watering of the eye when one sees another person's [Page 185]eye injured or the feeling of nausea when listening to others vomiting, for example.13 This "gut feeling" helps define the instincts of right and wrong. It is the basis of deontological ethics or, put simply, what is right is what we all know to be right.

How does hard neuroscience sit with sociological and behavioral science? William S. Hatcher, retired Professor of Philosophy and Mathematics at Laval University, Québec, Canada, regards the simple fact that all individuals react positively to love, acceptance, and generosity as proof of the universality of these spiritual values. 14 It may be argued conversely that some cultures exhibit different emotional reactions, and demonstration of these three behaviors in certain circumstances may be entirely unwelcome. However, if we define emotional reaction in terms of the intellectual content, not the stimulus, all cultures will exhibit literally hundreds of common behaviors. For example, if a person feels pleased, then the facial expression would be identified by other cultures as indicating pleasure. The stimulus will vary with culture, however; I might applaud a fine golf shot and show pleasure, but to an Amazonian Indian the same experience would be greeted with puzzlement. 15

In fact, in 1989, Professor Donald E. Brown compiled a list of 364 human universals as a result of recording behavior among numerous different tribes from many countries. 16

Incidentally, many universals were found in children before acculturation, indicating that we are not born with a "blank slate" but with a beginner's set of social reactions.

Two other deductions can be made from the numerous spiritual qualities that are found on Brown's list. First, many of these spiritual qualities are unquestionably instinctive, which belies the contention that all human instincts are animalistic. Second, the list provides circumstantial evidence of innate goodness, presumably supported by hardwired neurological circuitry.

The identification of the amygdala reaction to offense is the beginning of the mapping of particular centers for certain social functions, and many other areas of the brain having the purpose of social engagement have been described. It is also clear that these centers have numerous connections with other centers; in fact, the network grows as identification techniques become more sophisticated. [Page 186]This s type of basic hardware does not fully explain our complexity and variability. We need, in computer jargon, terabytes of RAM to enable behavior of the levels of sophistication seen in humans. If we examine the brain tissue of the newborn animal or human under a powerful electron microscope, we see a few neurons with few synapses on a featureless background or matrix, but after two months, it is totally changed: There is now a rich network of neurons and a myriad of connections. And after two years, the picture is almost all neurons and synapses. These changes are the anatomical result of learning: more facts, more synapses. The network allows numerous connections to be made, some repeated reflexively, as in riding a bicycle, and some new, as in innovative thought. This is the all-important capacity known as neural plasticity. It is reasonable to expect those networks to reflect various types of experience and learning. For example, if a child is subjected to violence and deprivation, there will be synapses registering this experience, while a child surrounded by love and comfort will have formed different synapse groupings. These groups, the basis of associated memory, are called engrams and are elicited by psychiatrists through word or picture association tests. To one patient, for example, red is associated with rose, love, happiness, while a different upbringing may retrieve the sequence red, blood, pain, hate.

The gradual elaboration of memory and reasoning proceeds at a particular pace. Psychometric testing shows that levels of sophistication of reasoning are age-related. An infant would not be aware of much more than the logical presumption that crying is the agreed signal for food or nappy change. A five-year-old would be expected to be protective towards a sibling but not to appreciate why excessive consumption is destroying the planet. These stages were first described by Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychiatrist who died in 1980 and was known for, among other work, his description of the six stages of childhood development. This developmental process can also be described in terms of levels or orders of thought. For example, "I know the date" is a first order of thought, while "I know that you know the date" is a second order of thought, and so on. Higher primates are capable of second-order thought, as is a five-year-old human, while reasonably intelligent adults are capable of fourth order, which is one of the prerequisites of moral deliberation. [Page 187]

SCIENCE AND MORALITY

Second-order thought enables apes and orangutans to hold details of acceptable behavior, such as who to please and who it is safe to bully, who owes or is owed a favor-a basic moral code, in fact. The communal discipline endows the group with stability, which, in turn, allows peaceful aggregation of larger numbers. In contrast, the larger brain capacity of humans allows fourth-order thought and therefore the intellectual equipment to moralize beyond self to a moral system that embraces all humanity, detached altruism, the future of the planet, and other wide-ranging issues.

It is also clear that there are apes in their communities that obviously do not pull their weight in the provision of food, protection, and other activities; they are called freeloaders, like their human counterparts. In the ape community, there is a limit for tolerance of freeloading and if it is surpassed, it will result in the expulsion of the individual. This "risk versus reward" assessment requires second-order thought. (Ideally, morality is its own justification, but in practice, disincentive for transgressions reinforces the system.)

Deception behavior is also observed in apes, which indicates that they have awareness of the results of transgression and the likely punishment. Nevertheless, some will make the decision to take the risk and to try deception. This is seen, for example, in young males endeavoring to find a mate amongst the harem of the alpha male.

Deception in humans has been studied by observing the difference in response delay to a question answered truthfully or dishonestly. Volunteers were instructed to answer questions truthfully or otherwise while their brain function was monitored by an MRI scanner. Scans showed a delay when volunteers lied and thus indicated that the default state of the brain was truth telling. This is not surprising, since truthful response is first-order thought, while deception requires second-order thought and a period of deliberation. Lying, therefore, is an acquired skill, and so it is unsurprising to find the frontal cortex activity enhanced on the MRI scan during deception.

To the question, what purpose does deception serve, the answer is "both good and bad." Always to tell the truth would be difficult and occasionally brutal. On occasions, lying smoothes social intercourse. On the other hand, deception may be practiced for self-gain. To be deceived for the purpose of protecting one's sensitivities is [Page 188]acceptable, but deception for gain causes offence, even though it may confer short-term advantages for the deceiver, as seen in studies of game theory.

Game theory is a research tool which was evolved in 1944 by the Hungarian genius John von Neumann to test economic survival strategies in groups. A simple example is called the prisoners' dilemma. In this scenario, two prisoners are questioned by the police. If they stay loyal to each other and say nothing, both receive a one-month prison sentence. If, however, one defects and gives evidence against the other, he is released and the other "gets" six months; if the two of them defect, both "get" three months. Therefore, if your partner defects, you are better off if you also defect, reducing your sentence from six to three months. If your partner remains silent, you are still better off defecting. In fact, whatever your partner does, you are better off defecting. Yet if he employs the same strategy, you both end up with longer sentences than if you remained loyal. The moral implication is that pure logic is mutually disadvantageous and altruism is mutually beneficial.

Economists initially rejected the bleak conclusion these games produced, because it did not reflect the true nature of human behavior. It was then recognized that life is not a sequence of single games but similar situations that are repeated, introducing the elements of trust, forgiveness, and reputation. Now the outcomes were more optimistic, for the altruists prospered if the game was played long enough. Many games were designed to approximate life's dilemmas and decisions, and eventually Robert Axelrod organized a computerized tournament of 14 different programs, in which each played the game 200 times against the others, against itself, and against a random program. The program that won consistently was Tit For Tat, the "nicest" program—which simply cooperated for the first round and then did what the other did. It succeeded because it was clear and predictable; it was nice to nice partners, retaliatory to betrayers, and forgiving to repenters.

The extrapolation of game theory to human behavior is of limited use, but it confirms the social value of a reputation for honesty, altruism, and justice. It also indicates that reciprocity and punishment are useful social tools. Game theory shows how these factors [Page 189]are advantageous, and some of the scientific data shows that they are predisposed, either by nature or nurture.

Brain capacity and morality

In survival games of various designs, where players are secretly given roles of cooperators, "honest johns," or liars, the honest cooperators usually win and achieve a stable community. We see the same phenomenon in apes where there is a group survival advantage to this basic moral discipline of honest cooperators. It confers advantages of protection, cooperation, larger groups, and a richer gene pool to reduce harmful mutations.

The intellectual capacity to enable such cooperation can be related to the size of a particular part of the brain called the neocortex, also named "the social brain" by Sean Spence, Professor of Primatology at Sheffield University.17 He found that there is a linear relationship between the ratio of body weight and neocortex weight and the size of community. This holds true for monkeys, apes, and humans. Extrapolation of the graph of results for primates indicates the stable group for humans would be 150. It is impossible to assess the number of acquaintances, relatives, friends, fellow club members, and work colleagues in the same way as ape families. However, if we look at traditional gatherings such as those for celebrations of puberty, food gathering, and communal decision making in primitive tribes, we find the number is around 150. This is not simply the number of faces one can remember; it also reflects the number of people one cares about-another function of moral behavior.

An interesting experiment assessing spare brain capacity also shows inducibility. A group of adults matched for age and sex was divided into three. None were piano players. Members of the first group were shown finger exercises and practiced them three times per day on the piano. The second group were also shown the finger exercises but were only allowed to observe the piano players carrying out the piano practice three times per day. The third group were controls and were not shown the exercises nor did they play the piano. Functional brain scans were carried out on all three groups once each day for five days. While the scans taken before the experiment began were comparable with regard to the areas of the brain [Page 190]which were to be studied, over the next five days groups one and two showed a gradually enlarging area of activity. By contrast, the controls showed no change. The change was evidence of new activity-new synapses rapidly developing over a short period, not only in the motor cortex (brain tissue that controls movements) but also in the social/emotional part of the brain. 18

This experiment also indicated the immense spare capacity of the human brain. These findings do not accord with our accepted understanding of evolution, where functional demand precedes structural modification; rather, in the case of the brain, we seem to have been endowed with a structure far beyond the requirements of the time. If the rapid enlargement of the human brain (which occurred relatively recently in evolutionary terms) was not a response to need, why did superfluous brain tissue occur? Could one argue that this would indicate an interventionist God, Who, knowing what our future would require, equipped humans with the necessary latent capacity?

Moral impairment

Morality clearly depends on brain capacity as well as experience, and it can be impaired by damage to the social brain. Such damage may occur through physical injury, tumor growth, degenerative disease (such as Alzheimer's disease), and substance abuse. The first recorded case of behavior change after trauma was reported in 1856, when an American railroad worker by the name of Phinneas Gage was compacting dynamite into the side of a hill with an iron bar prior to excavation. The dynamite exploded, propelling the meter-long iron bar through the man's left cheek, eye socket, and frontal part of the brain. After a brief period of unconsciousness, he sat up and was helped to the local hotel. He recovered sufficiently by six weeks to return to work. However, his doctor recorded a dramatic change in his personality; from being gentle and sociable and a good husband, he changed into a violent, addictive man. 19

Professor Faraneh Vargha-Khadem of the Institute for Child Health in London examined functional MRI scans of children and adults who had sustained damage to the frontal lobes of the brain, where the social brain is located. Their personality disorders, like that [Page 191]of Phineas Gage, were clearly related to the damaged frontal areas of the brain. 20 This work also illuminates the importance of training to childhood behavior. For example, if the frontal cortex area is damaged early in childhood, there is no processing and loading of experience to the conscious, and the patient will therefore be unable to deliberate on the right or wrong of a situation. If the injury occurs later than, say, 15 years, the programming has occurred but there is still antisocial behavior. The difference is that now the patient is capable of deliberation and is aware of the misbehavior, but still he will not change. He simply does not care.

The frontal cortex receives information from the hardwired centers of the brain, from engrams, and directly from the centers that register sensory experiences. It probably processes this input, deliberates, and formulates patterns of behavior and judgments, which are normally subject to updates as new experiences or thoughts are logged. The brain retains this malleability, or the capacity to independently evolve thought processes following new information or meditation. In highly artificial circumstances such as indoctrination, this independence of thought can be disabled, and certain thoughts become inaccessible to reason and logic. This is the mental process of fanaticism and is typically used to promote the importance of dogma above the individual, or, in the Kantian concept of ethics, the elevation of means above the ends: To deliberate or not to deliberate; on one hand, to own and develop one's faith, its expression and influence on life, one's relationship to the world, and one's own responsibilities, or, on the other hand, to be owned by that faith and to be an automaton, blindly responding to another's orders.21

Taking the question of child training a little further, one may ask why apparently healthy children sometimes become sociopathic. Michael Penn, Professor of Psychology at Franklin and Marshall College, Pennsylvania, has argued that unless a child is able to recognize the relation between misdemeanor and punishment, he or she will eventually be unable to respond to the rationale of discipline. This situation may arise either if the child has a genetic trait that predisposes him or her to antisocial behavior, or through repetitive, irrational abuse. An example will serve to illustrate the point: A group of normal adults and psychopathic adults were informed that at the end of a 10-second countdown they would receive an unpleasant [Page 192]stimulus. Skin electro-conductivity measurements in psychopaths showed little change in conductivity; in contrast, nonpsychopathic volunteers showed a significant rise in conductivity when the countdown started and an accelerating rise as the count approached the end point. Evidently, the physiological change associated with fear of anticipated pain is absent in psychopaths. This neurological defect seems to be in the limbic system of the brain, a center which is strongly associated with emotional development.

Another experiment which added to the understanding of training involved the state of helplessness. Normal volunteers were divided into three equal groups. Two groups were subjected to aversive events such as painfully loud noise. Members of one group, by application and perseverance, were able to find a method of ending the aversive event and continued to apply themselves to solving the problem of each event. For the second group, there was no solution; they eventually realized that they could exert no control and began to suffer the aversion passively. Members of the third group were subjected to neither and were simply the control. Researchers suggested that the real-life equivalent to this experiment is recognition of the relation of action to outcomes. The important outcomes in shaping moral behavior are reward and punishment, as we see in the hierarchical behavior control in primates. If there is a neurological deficit that prevents this logical modification of behavior, antisocial behavior disorder is the outcome, as with the frontal lobe injuries reported by Vargha-Khadem. When there appears to be no justice or logic to life's successes or failures and when good behavior and bad have the same result, then again the outcome is likely to be antisocial behavior.

Culpability and management of the two etiological types, however, are quite different, which brings up an interesting philosophical point relating to forensic aspects of behavior. The definition of antisocial behavior disorder is independent of causes. If the diagnosis relies on definitions and protocols (or is, in other words, evidence based), as is the current tendency, then there may be no difference in the management of the offender, regardless of the cause. A value-based diagnosis, however, suggests that there should be consonance between the treatment of antisocial behavior and its cause. For example, there may be a group with neurological deficit due to trauma or genetic abnormality, who cannot be culpable since they are not [Page 193]conscious of the digression and are incapable of responding to corrective discipline, while those who are antisocial because of abuse are capable of response but need expert therapy.

It is frequently asserted that the media are responsible for instantiation of violence in children and its continuing expression in adulthood. Several mechanisms for this have been suggested, the most supportable of which are desensitization (repeated viewing of violent material), behavioral effects (encouragement to see aggressive behavior as the norm), and cultivation effects (developing a distorted view of the world). While there is a significant body of opinion that supports the relationship between violent behavior and the hours of violence viewed, the Commission on Children and Violence (1995) found that the context in which the violence was viewed was the primary factor. This indicates that a child in a moral domestic environment would be less influenced than one in a permissive or violent environment.

Incidentally, there is an interesting condition which seems to indicate the importance of love even to the physical growth in children. Children who are deprived of nothing except affection fail to thrive not only emotionally, which is no surprise, but also physically. This condition is called "nonorganic failure to thrive." The mechanism is unclear.

Genes and character

We have seen that there are individuals who are not equipped to be socialized because of neurological abnormalities, the locus of which may be the frontal lobes (social brain) and may be due to injury or genetic aetiology. Genes work in two ways: first, by influencing the biological structure of the brain and second, by shaping its development.

There is a variable relationship between genes and behavior abnormalities. Schizophrenia, on the one hand, has long been recognized as a Mendelian inherited dominant abnormality. This means that if one identical twin is schizophrenic then the other will also be schizophrenic, while if one fraternal twin has schizophrenia the other has a 50 percent chance of being affected, and if one parent is schizophrenic there is a 25 percent chance in each [Page 194]194 THE BAHÁ'Í WORLD 2004-2005 offspring. However, according to Akira Sawa and Atsushi Kamiya, this disease is a neuro-developmental fault, involving architectural, cellular biological, and protein abnormalities, which could all stem from a gene for schizophrenia. 23 But there appear to be additional influences, including environmental factors, which are involved in the full manifestation of the symptoms of schizophrenia. 24 So even for schizophrenia, the psychogeneticists" "banker," there appears to be a multifactorial influence on expression, which demotes the im- portance of the gene. Thus, behavioral geneticists assert that most genes are probabilistic. That conclusion frustrates both sides in the "nature versus nurture" debate, for neither can claim pure expression of effect, not even for schizophrenia. The controversy between nature and nurture is not so swiftly resolved by the assertion that there are more subtle and less predict- able effects stemming from combinations of genes on adjacent sites and variable penetrance. The expression of some genes may also depend on whether the gene is inherited from the father or mother. To complicate the picture further, the expression of any gene, not just schizophrenia, may be influenced by the environment. As Dr. Craig Venter, president of the American company Celera, who defined the human genome simultaneously with the Sanger Laboratory in Cambridge, has said, "You cannot define the effect of genes without defining the effect of the environment."25 Clearly, the determinist view of one gene per character trait for humans cannot be correct, as humans possess merely 30,000 genes (only twice as many as the fruit fly), even if environment does in- fluence expression. The reductionist view that understanding the genome will allow complete explanation of human variability is equally untenable and wildly optimistic. How, then, can the sophis- tication and variation of human beings be explained? The answer lies in the variable penetrance, environmental effects, group effects, subtle control genes, and the large numbers of minigenes or snips (single nucleotide polymorphisms) that confer multifunctionality. The frustrating thing for eugenecists is that qualities of giftedness such as great musicianship, athleticism, or leadership are emer- genic expressed only when there is a certain combination of genes and circumstantial factors. [Page 195]SCIENCE AND MORALITY 195 Some genes have a narrow predictable expression, and others are more variable and subtle. One example of the former is the DRD4 gene mutation, the effect of which is antisocial behavior and aggres- sion. This mutation seems to have arisen about 40,000 years ago and was probably a survival advantage then, spreading quickly through the population; unsurprisingly, its expression is sexlinked. At the other end of the spectrum, one confronts the myriad com- plexities of the effects of the FOXP2 gene, which plays an important role in language and speech development and is one of a family of genes that play a role in the formation of the embryo itself. Since its influence is therefore exerted at both ends of the spectrum of de- velopment-embryological and social-the importance of this gene cannot be overestimated.26 In conferring the capacity for speech, and therefore sharing knowledge and experience as well as the ability to organize and cooperate, it acted as a springboard to propel mankind forward at a pace that would otherwise have been impossible. It was the gene that probably enabled socialization more than any other, with a fundamental role in the evolution of moral behavior. The description of the human genome, the fundament of hu- manness, can be written as a formula that is common to all. This, in itself, has underpinned the oneness of humankind and the el- ementary observation that the only qualification for human rights is to be human, not a particular color or race. Mining the human genome treasures will augment the objective understanding of hu- man behavior. Identical twin studies show the power of the genetic component in character and behavior. Similarities in identical twins, whether they are raised together or separated at birth, are significantly greater than in fraternal twins or in brothers and sisters. Again, virtual twins (unrelated babies, one or both adopted) who are raised together from birth show no similarities in behavior, character, or IQ, beyond that attributable to chance. The obvious deduction is that genes do influence character and behavior. Some single genes have a powerful influence on mind and a dominant expression. Most traits, however, are related to groups of less dominant genes, which are more or less influenced by other genes. For example, genes related to moral behavior that are of subtle expression are easily overwritten by up- bringing. On the other hand, many studies indicate that the behavior [Page 196]of profoundly antisocial individuals has shown consistency since early childhood through adulthood and has defeated the best efforts of their parents. This, again, suggests an inherited causation. A simple example of nurture trumping nature is given by Steven Pinker. The field of different strains of corn grown in a field will attain different heights because of the different genes, a single strain of corn grown in different fields, one dry the other irrigated, will show differences in height because of the environment.27

Future

We have seen how science may explain our innate moral nature and how it can be evolved or compromised by experience, genes, and brain damage. To conclude this glance at a small sample of the huge volume of available science which can be adduced to this topic, let us look briefly towards the future. Carbon-silicone interface chemistry promises implantable data and intelligence. Silicone chips similar to those in our computers, loaded with information and programs, may be implanted in humans, short circuiting the onorous task of learning. Someday before too long, people may be able to buy chip off the shelf for school matriculation exams, a law degree, or to achieve proficiency in an international language. While this may cause rejoicing in classrooms around the world, many questions immediately arise. Who, for example, loads and programs the chips? It is unlikely that any ethical body would be funded for the costs of development, even if there were acceptance. This kind of project is entrepreneurial, leaving the door open to subliminal suggestion, whether for political or commercial reasons, and resulting in individuals' loss of autonomy. Furthermore, data implantation does not endow wisdom, although in response it could be argued that eliminating the hours of learning information that is readily available from implants, or, less controversially, powerful computers the size of a wrist watch, would free us to use the time more effectively in deliberation, which begets wisdom.

Conclusion

Throughout history mankind has consistently demonstrated an instinctive thirst for knowledge, an urge to seek explanations when [Page 197]confronted with uncertainty, a drive to conquer physical challenges. Much of the research cited in this essay, motivated by these factors, was aimed at the rationale of behavior. It is fortunately possible to extrapolate the findings to inform the parallel question of the nature of morality. The essay begins this process by indicating the biological substrate of moral capacity and the sociological factors in its evolution. Neurology and psychology explain aspects of dysfunction.

To find common ground for diverse moral codes, especially religious codes, proves elusive and is frequently ignored. Where distrust and suspicion exist, there is a tendency to focus on differences rather than commonalities, which increases division. Impartial science-based reasoning transcends cultural differences in other theaters of scientific endeavor, and it is hoped that the same approach will prove to be a unifying force in the area of moral conflict. The genetic and sociological data depict humankind as one family whose behavioral patterns include vastly more shared features than disparities. How can this not encourage brotherhood and integration?

The evidence relating moral living to personal and public health is clear. Similarly, scientific evidence of planet degradation exposes the lack of moral direction in governments, institutions, and industry that threatens the very survival of mankind.

Neuroscience illuminates different causes of antisocial behaviors, enabling distinctions to be made between the deliberately immoral, the misdirected, and the noncompetent person. These distinctions indicate the necessary differences in management of the individual and societal causes.

Finally, the wider acceptance of the consonance between science and religion, which latter is an important aspect of moral considerations, might encourage a more critical appraisal of extreme religious dogma. It is also clear that the problems of multiracial societies have not been solved by the assimilation approach, as in France, nor multiculturalism, as in the UK. Integration seems to be the most promising model, and this body of research may be a small impetus to this end. [Page 198]

NOTES

1 In referring to this subject, the sacred writings of the Bahá’í Faith refer to two kinds of religious teachings: the first are eternal and unchangeable, while the second “relate to the material affairs of humankind. These are the material or accidental laws which are subject to change in each day of manifestation, according to exigencies of the time, conditions and differing capacities of humanity.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá during His Visit to the United States and Canada in 1912 (rev. ed. Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1982), p. 106.

2 Stephen Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Denial of Human Nature and Modern Intellectual Life (London: Penguin, 2002), p. 273.

3 As the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, Shoghi Effendi, wrote of what he termed the “triple gods” of nationalism, racialism, and communism, “Their high priests are the politicians and the worldly wise, the so-called sages of the age; their sacrifice, the flesh and blood of the slaughtered multitudes; their incantations, outworn shibboleths and insidious and irreverent formulas; their incense, the smoke of anguish that ascends from the lacerated hearts of the bereaved, the maimed, and the homeless.” The Promised Day Is Come (rev. ed. Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1996), p. 186.

4 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá cautioned listeners about such attitudes in a speech He gave in the United States in 1912, saying, “Mathematicians, astronomers, chemical scientists continually disprove and reject the conclusions of the ancients; nothing is fixed, nothing is final; everything is continually changing because human reason is progressing along new roads of investigation and arriving at new conclusions every day.” Promulgation, p. 21.

5 Paul Davies, “What Happened before the Big Bang?” in God for the 21st Century. Russell Stannard, ed. (Radnor, Pennsylvania: Templeton Foundation Press, 2000), pp. 10–12.

6 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statement, “All the orbs and luminaries in this illimitable universe are, likewise, obedient to nature’s regulation,” supports this interpretation. Promulgation, p. 351.

7 Fred Hoyle, Plumian Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University. Founder of the Institute of Astronomy.

8 As Bahá’u’lláh wrote, “Witness how every time the Day Star of Divine bounty hath shed the light of His Revelation upon the world, the people of His Day hath risen against Him and repudiated His truth. They who were regarded as the leaders of men have invariably striven to hinder their followers from turning unto Him Who is the Ocean of God’s limitless bounty.” Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh (Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1983), p. 56. [Page 199]9 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá said, “until the European religionists withdrew from the East, leaving ashes of desolation behind them and finding their own nations in a condition of turbulence and upheaval. Hundreds of thousands of human beings were killed and untold wealth wasted in this fruitless religious warfare.” Promulgation, p. 265.

10 Compare this statement: “In the human body every cell, every organ, every nerve has its part to play. When all do so, the body is healthy, vigorous, radiant, ready for every call made upon it.” The Universal House of Justice, Wellsprings of Guidance: Messages from the Universal House of Justice (Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1976), pp. 37–38.

11 See, for example, the following passage: “For a long time the religious world had been weakened and materialism had advanced; the spiritual forces of life were waning, moralities were becoming degraded, composure and peace had vanished from souls, and satanic qualities were dominating hearts; strife and hatred overshadowed humanity, bloodshed and violence prevailed.” Promulgation, p. 95.

12 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has said, “Put all your beliefs into harmony with science; there can be no opposition, for truth is one. When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords, and struggles—and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks: Addresses Given by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in 1911 (London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1995), p. 146.

13 Raymond Dolan, lecture given at “The Science of Morality” conference, College of Physicians, London, 2002. See also Raymond Dolan, “On the Neurology of Morals,” Nature 2:11 (November 1999), pp. 927–929.

14 William S. Hatcher, lecture given at “The Science of Morality” conference, College of Physicians, London, 2002.

15 Stephen Pinker, in The Blank Slate, pp. 435-439.

16 Ibid.

17 Robin Dunbar, “The Evolution of the Social Brain,” Evolutionary Anthropology 6 (1998), pp. 178–90.

18 Susan Greenfield, Chapter 1, “How to think about the brain,” in Guide to Brain Health (Washington: Dana Press, 2002), pp. 5–16.

19 Images and text at the Warren Anatomical Museum, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA.

20 Antoine Bechara et al., “Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventro-medial prefrontal ‎cortexlesions cortex lesions‎,” Brain 123, pp. 2189–2202.

21 In this regard, the Bahá’í writings caution, “O Son of Spirit! The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if [Page 200]thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart how it behooveth thee to be.” Bahá’u’lláh, The Hidden Words (Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1975), pp. 3–4.

²² Robert Hare, “Twenty Years of Experience with the Cleckley Psychopath,” in W.H. Reid, Unmasking the Psychopath (W.W. Norton, 1986).

²³ Akira Sawa and Atsushi Kamiya, “Elucidating the pathogenesis of schizophrenia,” British Medical Journal (2003) 327: 632–633.

²⁴ H. Karlsson et al., “Retroviral RNA identified in the CSF and brain of individuals with schizophrenia,” Proceedings of the National Academy of ‎Science Sciences‎, USA (2001) 98: 4634–39.

²⁵ ‎Craig Ventnor Craig Venter‎, in conversation with Mark Henderson, The Times (21 February 2001), News 5.

²⁶ C.S.L. Lai et al., “A novel forkhead domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder,” Nature (2001) 413: 519–523.

²⁷ Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate, p. 49.