Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, supports the proposition that our moral intuitions are masked with the default face of guilt. For Singer to help support his argument, he uses Josh Greene’s study of fMRI imaging to better determine what exactly happens in the mind when given a certain circumstance. Jonathan Haidt’s incest predicament also assists in support of the disguise to what exactly these moral “truths” can have upon one’s deliberation. Our moral instincts, prima facie, tip the scales in regards to decision making; therefore, are not a completely dependable resource. In this paper, I will support Peter Singer’s proposition and explain why it has the potential to be a persuasive subject matter for overcoming these intuitive “pulls”.
…show more content…
Josh Greene’s goal was to find out what mental reactions are triggered as a result from such decision making. After interrogating the participants about the 2 hypothetical situations involving the driverless trolley, the results were very distinct. In regards to the footbridge, it was discovered that the individuals had very large amounts emotional reaction in their VMPFC (ventromedial prefrontal cortex). This would be due the more personal decision making since one would be in physical contact with the large individual and determining whether that person would live or not. However, when the participants were asked what they would do in the situation of the switch, there was a larger cognitive report in their DLPFC (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex). Here, there is less personal contact since it is a switch instead of a person being used as an accessory. In the case of the footbridge, for the number of individuals who voted yes to use the large person as an accessory, there were results of hesitation in decision making due to the deliberation of overriding the intuitive “pull”. How could such a pull be able to dictate our
Josh Greene’s goal was to find out what mental reactions are triggered as a result from such decision making. After interrogating the participants about the 2 hypothetical situations involving the driverless trolley, the results were very distinct. In regards to the footbridge, it was discovered that the individuals had very large amounts emotional reaction in their VMPFC (ventromedial prefrontal cortex). This would be due the more personal decision making since one would be in physical contact with the large individual and determining whether that person would live or not. However, when the participants were asked what they would do in the situation of the switch, there was a larger cognitive report in their DLPFC (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex). Here, there is less personal contact since it is a switch instead of a person being used as an accessory. In the case of the footbridge, for the number of individuals who voted yes to use the large person as an accessory, there were results of hesitation in decision making due to the deliberation of overriding the intuitive “pull”. How could such a pull be able to dictate our