Emotional Morality

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Would you take one human life to save many? The obvious answer might seem to be “yes” —but what if your choice also meant you would be sacrificing your own child? Such dilemmas suggest that moral decision making has an emotional component, and now scientists have found the brain region responsible for generating these feelings.

Researchers studied patients with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area in the forebrain where social emotions such as compassion, guilt and shame arise. They asked the patients to respond to a variety of hypothetical moral dilemmas evoking emotional reactions of different strengths, then compared their responses with those of people whose forebrains were intact.

The subjects with damage showed a utilitarian approach in their answers, favoring the greater good regardless of the means required to achieve such ends. For example, many of them said they would smother their own baby to save a group of other people, whereas those with intact forebrains more often said they would not do so. In less emotionally fraught scenarios, all the study participants responded similarly. For instance, nearly everyone would choose to redirect deadly fumes from a room with three strangers to a room with one.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The findings show that our natural aversion to harming others emerges from two previously documented systems in the brain —one emotional and one rational. The emotional system pinpointed in this study triggers a fast, reflexive response; it provides a shortcut to what is right in situations requiring immediate action. The rational side aids us when deliberation and calculation are advantageous. Scientists do not yet understand how the two systems interact or how one supersedes the other when they dictate contradictory courses of action.

Moreover, people with damaged forebrains can still rely on their rational side to respond to moral dilemmas. “This study doesn’t mean that people who lack social emotions are dangerous,” says neuroscientist Michael Koenigs, then at the University of Iowa, a member of the research team. “They tend to show little empathy and guilt, but they are not killers.”

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe