publication . Article . Other literature type . 2012

The Price of Your Soul: Neural Evidence for the Non-Utilitarian Representation of Sacred Values

Berns, Gregory S.; Bell, Emily; Capra, C. Monica; Prietula, Michael J.; Moore, Sara; Anderson, Brittany; Ginges, Jeremy; Atran, Scott;
Open Access
  • Published: 05 Mar 2012 Journal: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, volume 367, pages 754-762 (issn: 0962-8436, eissn: 1471-2970, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: The Royal Society
Abstract
<jats:p>Sacred values, such as those associated with religious or ethnic identity, underlie many important individual and group decisions in life, and individuals typically resist attempts to trade off their sacred values in exchange for material benefits. Deontological theory suggests that sacred values are processed based on rights and wrongs irrespective of outcomes, while utilitarian theory suggests that they are processed based on costs and benefits of potential outcomes, but which mode of processing an individual naturally uses is unknown. The study of decisions over sacred values is difficult because outcomes cannot typically be realized in a laboratory, ...
Subjects
free text keywords: General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, 1001, 92, 14, 42, Articles, Research Article, functional magnetic resonance imaging, sacred values, utility, deontologic, rules
Funded by
NSF| Sacred Values and Biological Antecedents of Political Conflict
Project
  • Funder: National Science Foundation (NSF)
  • Project Code: 0827313
  • Funding stream: Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences | Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences
39 references, page 1 of 3

1 Atran S.Axelrod R.Davis R.2007 Sacred barriers to conflict resolution. Science 317, 1039–1040 10.1126/science.1144241 (doi:10.1126/science.1144241)17717171 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

2 Ginges J.Atran S.Medin D.Shikaki K.2007 Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 7357–7360 10.1073/pnas.0701768104 (doi:10.1073/pnas.0701768104)17460042 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

3 Baron J.Spranca M.1997 Protected values. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.70, 1–16 [OpenAIRE]

4 Casebeer W. D.2003 Moral cognition and its neural constituents. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.4, 841–846 10.1038/nrn1223 (doi:10.1038/nrn1223) [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

5 Kant I.1785/2005 Groundwork for the metaph ysics of morals (ed. Denis L.). Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press

6 Bentham J.1780/1988 The principles of morals and legislation. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books

7 Mill J. S.1871 Utilitarianism,4th edn.London, UK: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer

8 von Neumann J.Morgenstern O.1944 Theory of games and economic behavior.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

9 Nash J. F.1950 Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 36, 48–49 10.1073/pnas.36.1.48 (doi:10.1073/pnas.36.1.48)16588946 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

10 Tetlock P. E.2003 Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends Cogn. Sci.7, 320–324 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9 (doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9)12860191 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

11 Spash C. L.Hanley N.1995 Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol. Econom.12, 191–208 10.1016/0921-8009(94)00056-2 (doi:10.1016/0921-8009(94)00056-2) [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

12 Greene J. D.Nystrom L. E.Engell A. D.Darley J. M.Cohen J. D.2004 The neural basis of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron 44, 389–400 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 (doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027)15473975 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

13 Greene J.Haidt J.2002 How (and where) does moral judgment work?Trends Cogn. Sci.6, 517–523 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9 (doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9)12475712 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

14 Moll J.Zahn R.de Oliveira-Souza R.Krueger F.Grafman J.2005 The neural basis of human moral cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.6, 799–809 10.1038/nrn1768 (doi:10.1038/nrn1768)16276356 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

15 Moll J.de Oliveira-Souza R.2007 Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain. Trends Cogn. Sci.11, 319–321 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.001 (doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.001)17602852 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

39 references, page 1 of 3
Abstract
<jats:p>Sacred values, such as those associated with religious or ethnic identity, underlie many important individual and group decisions in life, and individuals typically resist attempts to trade off their sacred values in exchange for material benefits. Deontological theory suggests that sacred values are processed based on rights and wrongs irrespective of outcomes, while utilitarian theory suggests that they are processed based on costs and benefits of potential outcomes, but which mode of processing an individual naturally uses is unknown. The study of decisions over sacred values is difficult because outcomes cannot typically be realized in a laboratory, ...
Subjects
free text keywords: General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, 1001, 92, 14, 42, Articles, Research Article, functional magnetic resonance imaging, sacred values, utility, deontologic, rules
Funded by
NSF| Sacred Values and Biological Antecedents of Political Conflict
Project
  • Funder: National Science Foundation (NSF)
  • Project Code: 0827313
  • Funding stream: Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences | Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences
39 references, page 1 of 3

1 Atran S.Axelrod R.Davis R.2007 Sacred barriers to conflict resolution. Science 317, 1039–1040 10.1126/science.1144241 (doi:10.1126/science.1144241)17717171 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

2 Ginges J.Atran S.Medin D.Shikaki K.2007 Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 7357–7360 10.1073/pnas.0701768104 (doi:10.1073/pnas.0701768104)17460042 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

3 Baron J.Spranca M.1997 Protected values. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.70, 1–16 [OpenAIRE]

4 Casebeer W. D.2003 Moral cognition and its neural constituents. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.4, 841–846 10.1038/nrn1223 (doi:10.1038/nrn1223) [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

5 Kant I.1785/2005 Groundwork for the metaph ysics of morals (ed. Denis L.). Toronto, Canada: Broadview Press

6 Bentham J.1780/1988 The principles of morals and legislation. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books

7 Mill J. S.1871 Utilitarianism,4th edn.London, UK: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer

8 von Neumann J.Morgenstern O.1944 Theory of games and economic behavior.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

9 Nash J. F.1950 Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 36, 48–49 10.1073/pnas.36.1.48 (doi:10.1073/pnas.36.1.48)16588946 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

10 Tetlock P. E.2003 Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends Cogn. Sci.7, 320–324 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9 (doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9)12860191 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

11 Spash C. L.Hanley N.1995 Preferences, information and biodiversity preservation. Ecol. Econom.12, 191–208 10.1016/0921-8009(94)00056-2 (doi:10.1016/0921-8009(94)00056-2) [OpenAIRE] [DOI]

12 Greene J. D.Nystrom L. E.Engell A. D.Darley J. M.Cohen J. D.2004 The neural basis of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron 44, 389–400 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 (doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027)15473975 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

13 Greene J.Haidt J.2002 How (and where) does moral judgment work?Trends Cogn. Sci.6, 517–523 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9 (doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9)12475712 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

14 Moll J.Zahn R.de Oliveira-Souza R.Krueger F.Grafman J.2005 The neural basis of human moral cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.6, 799–809 10.1038/nrn1768 (doi:10.1038/nrn1768)16276356 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

15 Moll J.de Oliveira-Souza R.2007 Moral judgments, emotions and the utilitarian brain. Trends Cogn. Sci.11, 319–321 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.001 (doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.001)17602852 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

39 references, page 1 of 3
Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue