Hardwired Morality?

So it has been mentioned that my blog is out of date. I have no idea why someone would think that! I just haven’t had much interesting to write about these days, well that is not the total truth. I really haven’t had much time to do any blogging of my own. I do try to make the rounds and read everyone else’s (well not literally everyone).

I end up reading a lot of magazines. I like pictures to go along with all the words so magazines are the way to go for me. I have magazines that cover all sorts of topics, plus every month you get a new one! Well, I ran across an interesting article the other day that made me think some so I will relay the information to you and see what you think.

The article was about having an innate moral code of right and wrong. Of course they were coming at the thing from a strictly evolutionary point of view so they started off base, but I still found their logic amusing. The following scenario was given:

A healthy man walks into a hospital where five people are awaiting organ transplants. The five will die unless they receive these transplants. The question is: Is it ok to kill the one healthy man to supply the five with the necessary organs to live?

Most would say that, “No, that is not an ok thing to do?” Then another scenario is given:

A runaway train is headed down the track and cannot be stopped. There are five people in the direct path of the train and will surely die if nothing is done. An operator can flip a switch that will divert the train to another track where only one person is in harm’s way. Is it ok to flip the switch?

In this case, many would say that, "Yes, it is better to flip the switch and sacrifice the one to save the five." So the question then becomes, what is the difference? Why is it ok to sacrifice one to save five in one case and not the other case? The author's point was that most people couldn’t say why so there must be some hardwired sense of morality in our thought process that has been adopted through evolution and natural selection. They even mentioned that religion had no effect on the answers to these questions.

However, I think there is a flaw in their logic. Actually, I think there is a flaw in the conclusions that are being drawn. I would argue that the results they are seeing are not a hardwired morality, but a reflection of how we visualize a problem. I bet if we asked the same questions with more detail the answers would not be so overwhelmingly lopsided. For instance, what if the one person on the train track was a child and the five were members of a notorious gang? Or what if the five in the hospital were five young adults with gunshot wounds and the one was the shooter? Or maybe the difference is in how the death occurs, one by a speeding train and the other by more direct human intent? Who knows? I think the more intersting thing would be to ask people what they envisioned when these two questions were asked. I at least found it interesting to think about. What do you think?