The best way to dull hearts and win minds is with a scalpel.
Give up your outdated faith in the pen over the sword! With medical training and a sufficiently sharp but manoeuvrable object of your choice, you can change anyone’s mind on the most contentious of moral questions. All you need to make someone utilitarian is a nick to the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex (VMPC), a part of the brain related to emotion.
When pondering whether you should kill an innocent child to save twenty strangers, eat your pets when they die, or approve of infertile siblings making love in private if they like, utilitarians are the people who say “do whatever, so long as the outcome maximises overall happiness.” Others think outcomes aren’t everything; some actions are just wrong. According to research, people with VMPC damage are far more likely to make utilitarian choices.
It turns out most people have conflicting urges: to act for the greater good or to obey rules they feel strongly about. This is the result of our brains being composed of interacting parts with different functions. The VMPC processes emotion, so in normal people it’s thought to compete with the parts of the brain that engage in moral reasoning and see the greatest good for the greatest number as ideal. If the VMPC is damaged, the rational, calculating sections are left unimpeded to dispassionately assess the most compassionate course of action.
This presents practical opportunities. We can never bring the world in line with our moral ideals while we all have conflicting ones. The best way to get us all on the same moral page is to make everyone utilitarian. It is surely easier to sever the touchy feely moral centres of people’s brains than to teach them the value of utilitarianism. Also it will be for the common good; once we are all utilitarian we will act with everyone’s net benefit more in mind. Partial lobotomies for the moralistic are probably much cheaper than policing all the behaviours such people tend to disapprove of.
You may think this still doesn’t make it a good thing. The real beauty is that after the procedure you would be fine with it. If we went the other way, everyone would end up saying ‘you shouldn’t alter other people’s brains, even if it does solve the world’s problems. It’s naughty and unnatural. Hmph.’
Unfortunately, VMPC damage also seems to dampen social emotions such as guilt and compassion. The surgery makes utilitarian reasoning easier, but so too complete immorality, meaning it might not be the answer for everyone just yet.
Some think the most important implications of the research are actually those for moral philosophy. The researchers suggest it shows humans are unfit to make utilitarian judgements. You don’t need to be a brain surgeon to figure that out though. Count the number of dollars you spend on unnecessary amusements each year in full knowledge people starving due to poverty.
In the past we could tell moral questions were prompting action in emotional parts of the brain, but it wasn’t clear whether the activity was influencing the decision or just the result of it. If the latter, VMPC damage shouldn’t have changed actions. It does – so while non-utilitarianism is a fine theoretical position, it is seemingly practiced for egoistic reasons.
Can this insight into cognition settle the centuries of philosophical debate and show utilitarianism is a bad position? No. Why base your actions on what you feel like doing, discounting all other outcomes? All it says about utilitarianism is that it doesn’t come easily to the human mind.
This research is just another bit of evidence that moral reasoning is guided by evolution and brain design, not some transcendental truth in the sky. It may still be useful of course, like other skills our mind provides us with, like a capacity to value things, a preference for being alive, and the ability to tell pleasure from pain.
Next time you are in a morally fraught argument, consider what Ghandi said: “Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary’” He’s right; genetic modification would be more long-lasting. Until this is available though, why not try something persuasive like a scalpel to the forehead?
….
Originally published in Woroni
Meteuphoric 
A hypothesis:
Social cohesion is a result of citizens sharing a desire to believe something they all have a tiny private inkling might seem less true if they thought about it too much. They subconsciously know belief is easier when ubiquitously reinforced in social surroundings, and also that their beliefs are more enjoyable than the alternative. Thus they have a strong interest in religious behaviour in others and in their own feeling of unshakable commitment to those who practice it. So they encourage it with enthusiastic participation and try to ensconce themselves as much as necessary to feel safe from reality. If we found conclusive evidence of a god, everyone would be safe, and could get back to non-cohesion; it’s the possibility that the sky is chockers with nothingness that gives everyone the incentive for solidarity.
To test hypothesis, compare cohesion across other groups with beliefs (religious or otherwise) of varying tenuousness and of varying importance to their believers.