Purpose:

 To alter the belief that some people have that the only source of morality is religion.
Thesis:
 Morality is a complex fixture of modern humanity that is created through a combination
of innate and external motivations and constructs and is not, as some believe, solely
derived from religion.
What is morality?
 Morality is the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct -- i.e., the
guide to good or right conduct.
 Ethics is the philosophical study of Morality.
o Explaining the difference between morality and ethics will clarify the exact
definition of morality—what I am discussing in this paper. The two are often
incorrectly used interchangeably.
 The philosophy of morality is not so much about which actions are right and which ones
are wrong, as it is about what makes actions right or wrong. What are some theories of
morality’s source?
o “What makes morality right and wrong” is part of the internal or external drive
motivations debate.
What creates morality?
 Possible sources include- Culture, religion, feelings, pain and pleasure, interests,
rationality, rights, relationships, and character
 Moral Subjectivism- Right and wrong is determined by what you -- the subject -- just
happens to think (or 'feel') is right or wrong.
 Cultural Relativism- Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or
rules the relevant culture just happens to hold at the time.
 Ethical Egoism- Right and wrong is determined by what is in your self-interest. Or, it is
immoral to act contrary to your self-interest.
 Divine Command Theory- Many claim that there is a necessary connection between
morality and religion, such that, without religion (in particular, without God or gods)
there is no morality, i.e., no right and wrong behavior.
 Virtue Ethics- Right and wrong are characterized in terms of acting in accordance with
the traditional virtues -- making the good person.
 Feminist Ethics- Right and wrong is to be found in womens' responses to the
relationship of caring.
 Utilitarianism- Right and wrong is determined by the overall goodness (utility) of the
consequences of action. Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist moral theory.
 Kantian Theory- Right and wrong is determined by rationality, giving universal
duties. Kantianism is a Non-consequentialist moral theory.
 Rights-based Theories- We are to act in accordance with a set of moral rights, which we
possess simply by being human.
  Contractarianism- The principles of right and wrong (or Justice) are those which
everyone in society would agree upon in forming a social contract.
o These help explain the multitude of theories that people have had for ages about
the sources of morality and the confusion about which is right.

What brain structures deal with morality?

 developmental psychologists studied moral cognition largely as the capacity to
distinguish moral violations (e.g., hitting a classmate) from violations of social
convention
o Realizing that moral reasoning is its separate form of processing and that it has to
have a purpose
 finding the uniquely moral brain would mean finding brain regions that are not only
dedicated exclusively to moral cognition but also dedicated to all of moral cognition,
across diverse moral contexts (e.g., harm, fairness, loyalty, respect, purity). In other
words, the moral brain would have to manage only moral judgments and all moral
judgments.
o Explains a theory of where morality comes from
 Researchers gave up on finding a specific part of the brain that controls morality and
shifted focus to emotion and social cognition. moral neuroscience has provided no
candidates for substrates or systems dedicated to moral cognition
o Denounces that theory
 many early functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies relied on paradigms
contrasting putatively moral to nonmoral stimuli. what largely emerged for moral versus
nonmoral contrasts was neural evidence of greater emotional engagement and social
processing. In general, moral stimuli across studies elicited greater activity in brain
regions for emotional processing and social cognition
o introduces a substitute mental theory for morality
 Activations within the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), including the left medial
orbitofrontal cortex and medial Brodmann area (BA) 10, were observed for moral versus
nonmoral statements. Moral versus nonmoral scenes also elicited greater activation in
regions of the VMPC, in particular, the right medial orbitofrontal cortex and medial
frontal gyrus (BA 10 and 11) and lower medial BA 10. These findings suggest that the
VMPC is a key region for emotionally mediated moral judgments.
o Explains half of the theory
 research suggests that a particularly selective brain region for representing mental states
in the service of moral judgment is the right temporoparietal junction (RTPJ). The RTPJ
appears to support distinct cognitive components of mental state reasoning for moral
judgment, including the initial encoding of the agent’s mental state, the use of that
information for moral judgment, spontaneous mental state inference and even post-hoc
mental state reasoning to rationalize or justify moral judgments. Participants with high
RTPJ activity made more lenient moral judgments of accidental harms… participants
with a low RTPJ response made harsher moral judgments of accidents. The RTPJ is a
critical node in this neural network, selectively processing mental state information
during moral judgment.
o Explains the other half of that theory
  he moral brain can be found in the emotional brain and the social brain, as we have seen,
and, undoubtedly many other brain regions and brain systems that support cognitive
capacities such as valuation, causation, counterfactual reasoning, agency, cognitive
control, and deliberate, reflective reasoning. Moreover, moral judgments across different
contexts, cultures, and individuals are certain to depend differently on these cognitive
inputs
o explains even further reaches of that theory for the source of morality
 individuals with damage to an area of the brain that links decision-making and emotion
found that when faced with a series of moral dilemmas, these patients generally made the
same moral judgments as most people. This suggests that emotions are not necessary for
such judgments.
o Rules out another location for the source of moral reasoning
 [psychopaths] act violently even though they know it is wrong because they are without
remorse, guilt or shame.
o Explains that even though they know it is wrong (ergo they have moral reasoning)
they don’t make the right decisions (ergo they don’t have moral decision making)
 We generally do not commit wrong acts because we recognize that they are wrong and
because we do not want to pay the emotional price of doing something we perceive as
wrong.
o Suggests that psychopaths have damage to the social part of the brain which
causes decision making and proves further that it is involved in moral decision
making
What is religion’s effect on morality?
 w/out some objective reference point, how can we determine what is good or bad?
God/religious nature provides that reference point
o provides an argument against my thesis
 “in a world without god, there can be no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless
indifference.’ –Richard Dawkins (Atheist, Evolutionary Biologist, Emeritus Fellow at the
New College, Oxford)
o Provides credible argument against thesis
 Euthyphro’s Dilemma – Plato: Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will
something because it is good?
o Gives doubt to claim challenging my thesis
 Atheism; humans are just highly evolved animals; animals have no moral obligation to
each other
 Moral Argument for the existence of God: If god does not exist, objective moral values
and duties do not exist  But, objective moral values and duties do exist  Therefore,
god exists
o Another argument against my thesis
 participants were prompted to open a link where they could confidentially report whether
they’d witnessed, heard about, or performed any moral or immoral acts within the past
 hour, and jot down a description. They also entered details about how intensely they felt
about the event, rating emotions such as disgust on a 0 to 5 scale. Overall, people who
had identified themselves as religious or nonreligious when they registered for the
study committed both moral and immoral deeds with “comparable frequency”
o supports my thesis that religion does not affect your morality
 conservatives were more likely than liberals to report acts involving sanctity and respect
for authority, and liberals were more likely than conservatives to talk about fairness
o shows a difference in understanding of morality based on philosophy
 atheists remain the least trusted group by far, especially among born-again Christians
 the study “gave participants ten dollars and told them that they could keep or share as
much of it as they wanted with a second player, whom they would never meet. Under
such conditions participants keep all or most of the money for themselves, and that is just
what S&N's control participants did.” leaving on average $2.38 more. The religious
primes seemed to have elicited greater generosity. found that [nonbelievers] were just as
susceptible to the unconscious God Effect as religious participants were.
o Shows that religion can have an effect on morality but if you believe in god or not
does not have an effect, only the knowledge of the morals that religion embodies
How can religion hurt morality?

 The religious conservatives have morally failed because they ended up doing everything
that they once condemned as unjust and cruel. The religious conservatives have become
corrupted by power. But power corrupts more easily when you have neither principles
nor integrity.
 “there should be no religion without morality.” –Mustafa Cagrici (Prominent theologian
and former mufti of Istanbul)
 “Religion… can be a source of self-education, or it can be a source of self-glorification”
 “assuming that you are already moral and virtuous simply because you identify with a
particular religion is” dangerous
 Abiding by a legal code makes the believer feel upright in the eyes of God, even if she or
he is immoral when dealing with fellow human beings.
o Shows that religion isn’t the soul source of morality because it can be used as an
excuse for immorality
What are other influencing factors?
 This second study replicated the God Effect, but it also revealed a comparable legal
institutions effect. Participants in [the legally primed] group proved just as generous as
those who had had religious concepts primed.
 A picture of two eyes on the wall, as opposed to a picture of flowers, was, for example,
sufficient to significantly increase the payments for drinks in a lounge using the honor
system. Religious concepts have what it takes to inspire better conduct, but the eyes have
it too.
o Shows proven techniques that work just as well as religion