Ethical Decision-Making
A chapter in Jonah Lehrer's new book, <span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Decide-Jonah-Lehrer/dp/0618620117/" target="”_blank”">How
We Decide</a>,</span> sheds some interesting light on ethical
decision-making. The book shares the latest discoveries neuroscientists
have made using hightech views of the brain at work, especially when it
is making various sorts of decisions.<br>
<br>
The chapter called "The Moral Mind" shows that ethical decision-making
requires
"taking other people into account. ... Doing the right thing means
thinking
about everybody else, using the emotional brain to mirror the emotions
of strangers. ... At
its core, moral decision-making is about sympathy. We abhor
violence because we know violence
hurts. We treat others fairly because we
know what it feels like to be treated unfairly." <br>
<br>
This is what ethicists refer to as "<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/761" target="”_blank”">moral imagination</a>," the
ability
to imagine how others feel or would feel if you were to act one way or
another. There is a
special area of our brain (referred to as "sympathetic regions") in
which we, like our social primate ancestors, mirror others' emotions.
However, we do it with much greater sophistication. We effectively have
somewhat detailed theories of how others feel.<br>
<br>
But, as with any ability, not everyone has it to the same degree. In
fact, some people, such as those with autism, do not have this ability
at all. Lehrer also shows how and why those who, in early life, have
grown up in isolation or been abused lack this ability, as well.<br>
<br>
The best part of our ethical decision-making is that it can give us
pleasure, just like altruistic behavior, which is based on the same
mirroring process. In an experiment, "people
who showed more brain activity in their sympathetic regions were also
more likely
to exhibit altruistic behavior. Because
they intensely imagined the feelings of other people, they wanted to
make other
people feel better, even if it came at personal expense. But
here's the lovely secret of altruism:
it feels good. The brain is designed so
that acts of charity are pleasurable … [in an experiment] several
subjects
showed more reward-related brain activity during acts of altruism than
they did
when they actually received cash rewards.
From the perspective of the brain, it literally was better to give than
to receive."<br>
<br>
There is one position Lehrer takes that I think is not quite accurate,
and which does not, in any event, apply to the decision-making process
involved in government ethics matters. Lehrer says that
"within
a few milliseconds, the brain has made up its mind; you know what is
right and
what is wrong. ... It's only at this point -- after the emotions have
already
made the moral decision -- that those rational circuits in the
pre-frontal
cortex are activated. People come up
with persuasive reasons to justify their moral intuition. When it
comes to making ethical decisions,
human rationality isn't a scientist, it's a lawyer. This inner
attorney gathers bits of evidence,
post hoc justifications, and pithy rhetoric in order to make the
automatic
reaction seem reasonable. But this
reasonableness is just a façade, an elaborate self-delusion. ...
In other
words, our standard view of morality ... has been exactly
backward. We've assumed that our moral decisions are
the byproducts of rational thought."<br>
<br>
First of all, this sort of quick, intuitional act is not necessarily
emotional, but rather based on experience. When you first do a sport,
for instance, you have to think about what you are doing, but the
movements become second nature, involving different parts of the brain.
The same thing happens with many typical kinds of ethical
decision-making, especially the quick response to test situations in
the experiments neuroscientists
have thought up.<br>
<br>
This certainly matches many of our experiences, but
not the ones involved in government ethics, for instance. Yes, we might
have a quick, strong feeling whether something is right or wrong, but
we have the time and opportunity to think it over, to balance various
considerations, to think of how others might feel and even about
ourselves,
how a decision might affect our careers. We
also have the opportunity to look at the rules, to talk with others, to
consult ethics officers or others with more understanding of such
situations than we have.<br>
<br>
Yes, many people do use their rationality to create not only what
Lehrer calls
"self-delusion," but also to try to delude others. But this is not
ethical
decision-making. This is the opposite: this involves using our ability
to mirror others' feelings in order to manipulate their feelings. This
is the dark side of the sympathetic regions
of our mind, which Lehrer ignores (at least in this chapter). I often
show
examples of this sort of manipulation (or attempt at manipulation) in
this blog, because it is one of the most dangerous, insidious
aspects of government ethics.<br>
<br>
Rationality is important to government ethics. Our quick views of
right and wrong are often overly simplistic and uninformed. They are a
beginning, but not an end. And if we discuss our feelings and thoughts
with the right people, rather than with those who automatically agree
with us, who enable our behavior, good or bad, then we will be far more
likely to act correctly when it comes to government ethics.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>