Isabella Osborne

Mrs. Susanne Thomas

UWRT 1102-034
7 April 2015
Draft #1
The inquiry process has been a long and tedious task for me as a writer. I enjoyed writing the
final draft in all honesty. I loved how in the end I could put all my findings into one paper, and it
actually surprised me with how well all the information flowed into one paper. I was worried in
the beginning how I was going to connect everything. I found myself going back to the they say,
I say examples and trying to fit those into my thesis paper. I feel it made my paper sound more
interesting as I was debating back and forward with myself and the information given to me. If
there are any more suggestions for more they say, I say templates please tell me in the end. I
never quite got an answer in the end to my question, but I do believe the information given will
give the reader insight to how moral dilemmas work. Hope you enjoy!
Our Moral Dilemma: A Fact Never Proven
The human mind knows what is right and what is wrong. As being conscious beings we
can judge through past experiences, through the people around us, and through our own thoughts
what makes something good or bad. We know it is right to help someone in need and we know it
is wrong to kill someone. For that is what is said in the Bible, the Torah, and the Quran, right?
Even though some of you may not be religious as the next person, everyone does follow a type
of Golden Rule in a sense as to doing what is good in the world to the greater good of the
people. If you do not agree with this then think of the people who have raised you. They gave
you rules to live by, right? They said, Hitting is wrong, when you were a child; share your

markers with the other children, when you were in class; do not lie, steal, or cheat, when you
were in high school; and now as a college student you do not have someone to lean on when you
have to make that moral decision of right and wrong.
Those Golden Rules that were brought up when we were younger are now being
implemented on us by the many influences around us such as the media, peers, leaders, religion,
and even our own psychological changes. Robert V. Hannaford, a professor of philosophy, brings
up the Golden Rule in his research. Hannaford connects moral reason with religion. He then
goes on to saying that these rules cannot be traced to no single historical source or social
movement. Yet, how are the words the same? It only makes him wonder whether some common
elements of them might reflect something fundamental to all moral reasoning; as each claim to
do (Hannaford, 104-123). How can we tell what is right or wrong when there are so many
different views in what is truly right or wrong then? Do we, as in ourselves, have to make that
judgement? Or can we rely on those influences to help us? By questioning moral decision, I am
questioning how the mind works and how humans have been like a pendulum, wavering back
and forward, since the dawn of age.
I feel as if I should only begin with questioning the mind. Its almost like asking, What
came first, the chicken or the egg? when it comes to the mind and moral dilemma. What came
first, the mind or moral dilemma? The dilemma would not be here if it were for not the mind
making the judgement between right and wrong, yet what would the mind be doing if it did not
have to make decisions every day? The foundations of moral- decision making has been a long
debated discussion, so I only find it necessary to reveal how the mind works in uncovering how
humans can make the moral decision. While there were some who said people should rely on
intellect when distinguishing right from wrong, others believed that emotions such as empathy

should guide moral decisions (Saalfield, The Biology of Right and Wrong). Producer and
writer, Peter Saalfield, shines the light on philosopher and experimental psychologist and
neuroscientist, Joshua Greenes, experiment on trying to resolve this dispute. In the experiment,
Greene combines brain-scanning technology with classic experiments from moral psychology to
provide a new look at how rationality and emotion influence moral choices. Think of instances in
life where you had to decide to choose between right and wrong when there was emotion in the
way. Here is an example:
Our friends are people that we love very much. They are people who we know that we
can count on and we find ourselves willing to do whatever we can for them when they need our
help because we know that they would do the same. Well, put you and your friend back in high
school. You guys are at a party and when your friends start drinking they tell you do drink, too.
You know that drinking underage is wrong though. Your friends keep telling you that it is okay to
drink and that it is the cool thing to do. You love your friends (emotion) and do not want to
upset them by not having fun with them. You know what is wrong, but the emotion that you are
having between you and your friends is making that decision between saying yes and no is
making you have a moral dilemma.
Even though this is a simple example, people are faced with these kind of decisions every
day. Some easier than this, but then some a lot harder to go through because you have feelings
that get in the way of your decision making. Greene analyzes this process with the duel- process
theory where he compares the moral brain to a camera that comes with manufactured presets,
such as portrait or landscape. The presets that he uses are automatic and manual. Like a
camera, we have a point and shoot setting that is automatic and intuitive, efficient at solving
problems quickly and the source of our instinctive reactions. We also have a "manual" setting

that is more flexible, and that we can control; it's this controlled impulse that allows us to
achieve many of our most difficult goals (The Bauman Foundation, 2013). His primary tool is a
functional magnetic resonance imaging or fMRI. By monitoring blood flow to these areas, fMRI
allows Greene and his colleagues to observe exactly when someone is relying on manual mode
or automatic settings (Saalfield, The Biology of Right and Wrong).
When questioned about these different settings of the brain, Greene thinks that, we use
our manual mode, we use our reasoning, to rationalize and justify our automatic settings (The
Bauman Foundation, 2013). What he means by this is that as human beings we use the intuition
that we have to know what is right and wrong and because we are all different; different cultures
and different tastes, then that is what gets in the way of making the right decision. We are relying
on the different tastes to make the decision for us instead of us just relying on automatic settings.
Following his opinion about manual mode, he also states, I think that we are too willing to rely
on our automatic settings. Our emotions are there for a reason and they do a lot of good, but they
also get us into trouble in situations that they werent designed for (Saalfield, The Biology of
Right and Wrong). In thinking of what Greene has to say about his experiment, I tend to lean
towards the first response more than the second. Even though our emotions do play a huge role
in deciding what is right and wrong, I feel the influences around us create those emotions for us.
When knowing that it is okay to do something wrong because those around us are doing it we
rationalize that it is okay based on their judgements; not our own.
There have been more studies about moral dilemma and the emotions and influences that
set in when deciding right and wrong. Greenes experiment gave us two options to look at when
deciding what causes the decision process: emotions or individuals. There have been more
experiments that have been done to establish this process as well. Marc D. Hauser, an American

evolutionary biologist and a researcher in primate behavior, animal cognition and human
behavior, is widely known for his research with the internet-based 'The Moral Sense Test' in
which the participant is presented with a series of hypothetical moral dilemmas and is asked to
offer a judgment regarding each one. He presents these cases where people are to make moral
decisions based on the facts around them. He calls them artificial moral dilemmas (Hauser, 8).
Like Greene, Hauser has his own opinion about how the mind works in certain situations. He
tends to lean towards the emotional viewpoint.
He truly believes that there is only ever one option in any situation. The reason why we,
as humans, believe there is two is because the interference of our emotions. Hauser writes,
Emotions interfere with clearheaded thinking. An extreme version of this perspective is that
there are no moral dilemmas, because for every apparent conflict involving two or more
competing obligations, there is only one option (8). When looking at Hausers version of the
moral dilemma I can see why he believes emotions are the greatest influence over us. How many
times have you fought with yourself? Those moments when you debate yourself over and over in
your mind and can never choose what you believe to be right or wrong. You can never think
straight when there are those two little people on your shoulders; the angel and the devil, telling
you what to do. Hauser then goes into explaining what happens when we do finally make up our
minds. He says, Our emotions dont provide the right kind of process for arbitrating between
choices, even if they tilt us in one direction once we have made up our minds (Hauser, 9). What
Hauser means by this is that feeling of moral conflict between ourselves comes from the fact that
we are not thinking clearly or rationally. Rather, we are thinking with our gut than our head. The
moral conflict makes us choose between the two. In some instances the gut may work out, but

would not it be great if we could just always know what the good option is and never have to
worry about a second option?
When the mind has to deal with its own emotions and decisions it is more on the
individual when it comes to deciding right and wrong, but what about the influences around us
that could also disrupt the decision making process? Greene mentions these influences in his
experiment as well. I believe that influences around us are the real deciding factor. Donald Black,
a University Professor of the Social Sciences at the University of Virginia, also agrees that
influences overpowers emotions of oneself. Black explains how everyone takes one side of a
conflict and acts as an informer, adviser, advocate, ally, or surrogate of a principle party. Also,
that their social space, where they come from and who they are around, predicts whose side they
choose. To make this more understandable, here is another example:
You are at the same party with your friends in high school. Yes, there are those emotions
of love for your friends and that you do not want to disappoint them by not drinking with them.
But, also, the peer pressure of your friends is also making you contemplate what you want to do.
Drinking underage is wrong, we have already deciding this, but you do not want to be considered
uncool by the crowd for not drinking. After all, everyone is doing it, so where is the harm in
drinking just a few drinks?
As you can see from the example above there are the principle party people in the
situation. Your friends are advising you to drink and since their social space believes it to be the
cool thing they peer pressure you into drinking. These types of influences are what Black and
Greene discuss. These influences around us can make us decide the wrong decision because we
end up believing it to be right when everyone is doing it. Black explains it as followed, In the
simple societies studied by anthropologists the number of partisans on each side frequently

decides the winner: Might makes right (125). This makes sense when talking about choosing
between rights and wrong in a group because when there are more people telling someone do to
something, or act a certain way, then they are more likely to follow the crowd than to go off on
their own.
Think of the times when the popular crowd creates those influences over people. There
are more of them so people tend to follow them. If you are not in then youre out, and sadly not
enough people in the world ever want to go out on their own and make a name for themselves. It
is always easier to follow someone else according to Karen M. Douglas, a professor in the
Department of Psychology at Keele University. She talks about the third-person effect (TPE).
The third-person effect is the tendency for people to perceive the media as more influential on
others than on themselves (Douglas, 585-603). Black reinforces this third-person effect in stating
that, Partisanship is a joint function of the social closeness and superiority of one side and the
social remoteness and inferiority of the other. Those with the most intimacy and social stature
attract the most support (127). This third-person effect is traditionally measured by exposing
participants to persuasive media content and asking them to rate its persuasive effects on the self
and others persuasibility to media messages.
Douglas conducted three experiments to see how the effect happens. Throughout the
three experiments that were conducted the question that Douglas sought to go find an answer to
was, When people wrongly perceive others to be more influenced than themselves, do they
underestimate how much they themselves were influenced, do they overestimate how much
others were influenced, both, or is neither of these a cause of third-person perceptions? (587).
What this question is asking is that as an individual do we tend to be influenced because we think
third-person is greater than ourselves? Because everyone else is being influenced? Or both? In

my opinion I think it has to deal with both. That popular group that I was talking about in the
beginning believes that they are great than everyone, hence, they would not be peer pressuring if
they did not because they believe they can succeed in doing it because they have that power over
someone. In having that power then, they are creating the might makes right theory and
influencing everyone else making the individual more likely to be influenced as well.
After looking at all these different researchers ideal image of what moral reasoning is I
can connect Hannafords religious reasoning to the third-person effect, might makes right, The
Moral Sense Test, and the duel-process theory because in the end are not what all these ideas
have in common is doing the greater good for the community? We want to do what is good for
the larger group of life, even if that means doing what is wrong. "It's about doing," Hannaford
explains. "We provide food and water for the victims of an urban riot or a nearby natural disaster,
and when we are met by a lost child, we try to help it in finding its parents. As responsible people
we make choices that we believe can be shown to be acceptable to others in the community.
What is morally correct must reflect the judgment of the moral community (University Press of
Kansas, 2015). Think back to the time of Nazi Germany. Hitler was a narcissistic. Yet, because of
this people followed him. He got the community to believe in him and his ideas because he said
what he was doing was for the greater community. When looking back to the drinking example I
gave you twice to look at, think of the leaders in those situations. They too knew it was bad to
drink, as Hitler knew it was wrong to kill, but since in order to have fun or to live a fulfilling life
the leaders told the group to drink and Hitler told the Germans to hate all Jews. Both situations
end up being about the community as Hannaford seems to think that that is what moral reasoning
is all about.

Based on all this information I have to agree with Hannaford. When the community is
happy and the act is done for the community then we know everything will be okay since they
will accept the act. Those emotions and influences around us create the type of moral dilemmas
that I explained previously play a huge role into this decision process. As to point out what is
right and what is wrong in the world cannot be that simple. Everyone has a different viewpoint,
have different emotions they are dealing with, and have different influences around them. I wish
I were simple like back in the day when growing up and the worst thing we could have done was
not share our toys, but it is not and it never will be. I would also like to say that say individuals I
hope they you always have the strength to stand up for what you believe to be morally right
when the crowd is trying to make you do something wrong. Even if that does mean losing some
followers in the process. The decision as to what is right and wrong can only be determined by
the individual when it comes down to it. In writing this I wanted to give my readers the
information as to how their mind is working and as to why it is so hard to choose during these
types of situations. Whether you rely on your gut or your head is up to you now. Am I right? Or
am I wrong?

Works Cited
Black, Donald. The Social Structure of Right and Wrong. San Diego: Academic Press,
1993. Print.
Black, Donald. "Taking Sides." Black, Donald. The Social Structure of Right and Wrong. San
Diego: Academic Press, 1993. 125-143. Print.
Douglas, Karen M. "Right about others, wrong about ourselves? Actual and perceived self-other
differences in resistance to persuasion." British Journal of Social Psychology (2010):
585-603. Print.
Hannaford, Robert V. "The Gold Rule: Motive and Method in Moral Reasoning." Hannaford,
Robert V. Moral Anatomy and Moral Reasoning. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,
1993. 104-123. Print.

Hauser, Marc D. "What's Wrong?" Hauser, Marc D. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our
Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006. 1-55.
Print.
Saalfield, Joshua. "The Biology of Right and Wrong." January- February 2012. Harvard
Magazine. Web. 21 March 2015.
2015.
The Bauman Foundation. "Joshua Greene on the New Science of Morality." 30 March 2013.
Being Human. Website. 12 April 2015.
University Press of Kansas. Moral Anatomy and Moral Reasoning. 2013. Website. 24 March