|
Moral
Choice
This experiment, together with that following, can both be seen
in Part 1 of 4 at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvTwUugXZDY&feature=related
Whilst this virtual experiment determined that most people would make the 'apparently'
good moral choice as an instinctive reaction, I am by by no means certain that God would necessarily see that sacrificing
the one, albeit to save the many, was necessarily a good moral choice. Nonetheless I would like to think in the cold light
of day that, if I had been subject to that experiment, I would have made the choice to send the shooter down to
the ground floor. My thinking here is that taking the five out of harm's way by sending the shooter down in the lift cannot
of itself be anything other than a positive moral choice. Whether the shooter would then kill the one person on the ground
floor is not necessarily certain at that point, although it could be argued that choice would cause potential
dangerment to him/her. In the end of the day the choice to kill that one would be the shooter's alone.
Since
the choice was an instinctive one, given the timeframe to react to the situation, we can only conclude that saving the many
at the expense of the one is a natural and therefore God-given human reaction to an imperfect pair of choices. Everything
in life that we do seems to be the result of weighing in the balance the implications of all our decisions on a daily basis.
Every decision we make, even if made with good intention, seems to have a negative side-effect. It is this practice,
to make the correct moral decisions, that represents a significant part of our spiritual development in this Adamic
world. The good or evil element can only be judged by God from the original intent of each decision and not the actual
outcome.
Actually, thinking about it, this virtual game could be likened to the overall bible characters and plot.
The person making the moral decision is none other than Jehovah God Himself. The one on the ground floor, making the
sacrifice for the many, would be Jesus Christ. The five on the first floor would be representative of the whole of mankind
who the Christ died to save. Last, and most certainly least, the shooter would be Satan who would happily murder the
whole of mankind and Jesus given half a chance. So God clearly asked Jesus to sacrifice His human life to save the whole of
mankind. Jesus agreed to do so, which possibly represents a 'slight' divergence from the plot of the experiment where
no such agreement was sought. In the end though all will be saved; no-one dies in the spirit at the hand of man:
4 And I say unto you my friends,
Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
5 But I will forewarn you whom
ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. (Luke 12) Interestingly it would seem that the experimenters
that designed this test seem to have, probably unwittingly, copied the same test that God Himself took in order
to gain the best possible outcome for all his children:
28 so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins
of many; and the second time that he appears it will be apart from sin and to those earnestly looking for him for [their]
salvation. (Hebrews 9)
Infant Behaviour Now whilst the results of this test can only be considered to be a result of some
statistical relevance, it nonetheless can be argued that it shows a preponderance for good over evil preferences in humans
who have had virtually no experience of life. Therefore good or evil tendencies could be argued as an innate function of the
early human spirit. Traditional psychology could not even consider that possibility. Check out this link and judge for yourself:
http://danapress.typepad.com/weblog/2011/09/are-you-good-or-evil.html Interestingly scripture recognises the innocence
of children as having no knowledge of good and evil: 39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your
children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it,
and they shall possess it. (Deuteronomy 1) 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land
that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. (Isaiah 7) In this regard, the man Adam was also a child until he deliberately disobeyed his father Jehovah and chose to carry
out a disobedient act. It was this enactment that was deemed the knowledge of good and evil, not that Adam could not recognise
good from evil prior to his sin: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2) 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (Genesis 3) So it may be with today's infants. Discerning good from evil at an early age
provides the basis of our having a free choice to enact evil in defiance of one's conscience or parental advice in later
life. It is this latter choosing between acting for good or for evil which is when we truly begin to have the knowledge of
the angels. Indeed this knowledge should grow with our years as we should be adding wisdom to that knowledge as we have more
experience of life. In recognition of this Paul had this advice to give for the Hebrew congregation's ministry: 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers,
ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need
of milk, and not of strong meat.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness:
for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by
reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5) |
|
Rugby Team
This
experiment, together with the two that follow, can all be seen in Part 2 of 4 at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQMDsjgHhKw&feature=related
This experiment,
to check if the oxytocin hormone was released in the individuals during a rugby team bonding activity, proved positive.
Oxytocin is known to generate empathy (at least!) between people (and voles apparently!):
http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/
The experiment also found that testosterone was released to generate mutual team aggression
against the opposition. Games mirror society's positive and negative behaviours identifying the good v evil battleground
of everyday life. But the results of this experiment are interesting because, given these are natural reactions
to being put into a team game situation, it demonstrates that it is perfectly acceptable to both bond strongly with one's
own team members on the one hand and be prepared to act decisively and aggressively against opposition team members when
the situation warrants, i.e. when in danger (of losing). I have said elsewhere on this web-site that to be a child of
God means to share in His full range of emotions which include both love and anger. So it would seem to be acceptable to our
God that team games are a good thing in building strong positive relationships between brothers but to also be prepared to
stand together to defend one's brothers against the opposition team. There is no better example depicted in the bible
as that of our saviour Michael aka Jesus Christ in defending His heavenly brothers against the demon hordes:
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon;
and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more
in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan,
which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Revelation 12)
It is also worth mentioning in this context that, although we are exhorted to love ALL
men, there is no sin in loving some more than others as demonstrated directly by our Lord:
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his
breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? (John 21)
Marine Training
Looking at the various web-sites on the internet covering the
subject of US Marine training, it would appear that the boot camp methodology attempts (apparently very successfully) to overcome
the natural brotherly love that man feels for man. This is in the interest of building human killing machines that have no
moral dilemma in killing other human beings, including those who are not their direct enemies such as non-combatants. This
training regime would seem to confirm that nurture can successfully over-ride nature in that it has clearly been proven
(if you care to check out the following web-links) that the marine boot camp is highly successful in creating killing machines
from previously normal humane citizens:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/Training_Killers_Military.html
http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB6201.pdf
One problem (apart from the evil practice
itself!) is that it would also appear, that once this negative nurture has been applied, it does not appear to be easily capable
of being switched off. At least we do not seem to know today how to do this although I am sure our Lord
will know how in the Kingdom. In addition this form of training had negative side effects in terms of marines' losing
their normal relationship abilities with friends and family. At the end of this section of the programme it was made clear
that a new form of training needed to be devised to train for killing as a defence mechanism only. Interestingly this is allowed
under God's laws. Although occurring prior to the setting of the Law, there is no better example of defending
one's brother than Abram's armed rescue of his brother Lot from his kidnappers:
14 And when Abram heard that
his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
15 And he divided himself against
them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
16 And he
brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. (Genesis
14)
Since there is clearly the need to carry out this harsh regime of kill training
on all marine recruits, this would support the earlier section which argues that the majority (if not all) of humans
are born with an innate preference for good over evil. Boot camp obviously can overcome this innate attribute. If we take
these two sections together at face value they seem to indicate that human spirits are mostly naturally good in their
natures but can be turned evil through time and circumstance. My feeling up to writing this paper is that we are all tested
in this regards throughout our lives and the decisions we make will determine to our Lord the overall nature of our heart
condition. However we will not be tested beyond our reasonable ability to pass any test that our Lord chooses to give us:
13
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted
above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it]. (1Corinthians 10) I suspect
therefore that if a previously righteous man were trained as a marine, and wantonly killed innocents as a direct result of
that training, that the Lord would look at his record of behaviour prior to that training. To expect a viciously trained killer
to obey God's sixth commandment would not seem to me to be a fair test of that Marine: 13 Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20) I suspect this individual may find himself in the Kingdom under a suitable
programme of rehabilitation to the human race whilst his drill instructor will likely find himself on the wrong side of the
judgement even if that one had not actually killed anyone directly with his own hands. As we have found elsewhere on this
web-site, the Lord judges us by our heart condition: 7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the
height of his stature; because I have refused him: for [the LORD seeth] not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance,
but the LORD looketh on the heart. (1Samuel 16) Perhaps a killer marine had a good heart condition, prior to his training, which will be how God judges that one.
I would not wish to explore exactly how the dehumanising training programme of boot camp actually works on the brain/spirit
complex but it is possible that, throughout all of it, the spiritual heart of the man remains intact. It may be the spiritual
conscience that gets impacted and God will judge us all by how we obey our consciences. What knowledge we have right now would
suggest that the art of ‘killology' would appear to circumvent the fore-brain and desensitise the mid-brain either
of which effectively takes the conscience out of the marine's killing decision-making. Whatever the truth of the matter,
God is quite capable of judging each of us, almost regardless of our external behaviour, in ways that are completely outside
of our grasp. Mind you I would have to ask what righteous man would be a willing recruit for the marines if he had the full
prior knowledge that he will be turned into a remorseless killing machine.
Serial Killers
and Psychopaths
Psychopaths are described by neuroscientists as lacking empathy towards other people and having
no conscience. In clinical tests, known psychopaths exhibited no emotional response to emotionally charged words as a normal
person would. From further tests, it would appear that psychopathic killers have a common brain scan profile which,
worryingly for the neuroscientist presenting the Horizon programme, he actually shares with them:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127888976
One group had damage in the orbital cortex of the brain above the
eyes and the front of the temporal lobe in the amygdala. These are in the limbic system and effect the base animal drives.
These areas relate to the emotional responses and this pattern was established as belonging to psychopathic serial killers.
A genetic analysis was then carried out on a family with a history of serial killers. This found that one gene was missing
in the males of this family thereby establishing additionally a genetic causation of psychopathy. The gene involved was determined
to be the MAOA or Warrior gene. Interestingly the analyst found that he also had a psychopathic brain pattern plus a genetic
anomaly but he was not a serial killer (or so he claimed!). He had a happy childhood so he was able to determine that an abused
childhood would cause the gene be triggered towards serial killer behaviour.
Part
3 of 4 can be see at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=43Mv5Hw4Geg
It seems that psychopaths are very successful in high-powered business
positions. However, although they may present themselves well, they perform badly in practice. The current cut and thrust
of corporate culture is ideal for psychopathic success. So it seems that psychopaths profile serial killers or boardroom
executives depending on whether they had an abused childhood or not.
In the final tale in the programme, a killer
had clearly committed murder but the question was asked if he was really responsible if he were indicated to be a psychopath.
The defendent was determined to have the low activity version of the Warrior gene and he was also abused as a child. He was
therefore indicated as a psychopath to the jury by a subject matter expert. As a result his sentence was reduced from one
of first degree murder down to voluntary manslaughter which turned a death penalty into a custodial sentence based on diminished
responsibility.
Part 4 of 4 can be see at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmAyxpAFS1s&feature=related
So, according to current neuroscientific thinking, we can see that the three ingredients of an inactive orbital cortex,
high aggression variant of the MAO-A gene (monoamine oxidase A) together with an abused childhood can lead to the owner of
that brain becoming a psychopathic killer arguably outside of his own control. So, in comparison to our boot camp trained
killers above, these ones are a product of both nature and nurture whereas the marines are products almost entirely of a targeted
nurture. The result, however, would appear to be the same in the creation of a remorseless killer. Clearly this provides a
dichotomy for mankind's justice; even in God's Old Testament Laws murder is a capital offence without excuse or qualification
and I repeat: 13 Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20) The orbital cortex would appear to be the part of the physical human brain that processes the conscience element
of the human spirit. If that is damaged then the owner of that brain cannot truly be regarded as guilty of his serious
crimes. Mankind is not capable, however, of perceiving this lack of guilt easily beyond the physical proof of murder. It would
appear, however, that neuroscientists are now beginning to enter their evidence in as mitigating circumstance. In one
sense this is a little worrying in that this is yet another example, in our current times, of man playing god by building
further on his scientific tower of Babel. I would feel much more comfortable if we just abided by God's law as laid down
with Moses and left the true justice of the spiritual heart with our God until judgement day. The long Christian view of the
human justice system is that it is only a temporary arrangement that will be superseded by the perfect justice of our God
when He once again rules over mankind in the Kingdom. Who is the ‘thou' of Exodus 20:13. I would argue that it is the spirit of the murderer whilst it is actually
that spirit's soul that is punished for the act of murder: 30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the
mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
31
Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to
death. (Numbers 35) 21 And thine eye shall not pity; [but] life [shall go] for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19) 23 And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for
wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21) So
the bible-prescribed punishment of the Old Testament is that the taking of a life should be met by the loss of life of the
murderer. This seems like justice for a deliberate and conscious murder, but what if the murderer is a psychopath which neuroscience
is leading us to believe does not have the biological hardware to allow his spirit's conscience to function properly?
Well if we take the bible at its face value then it is still telling us that the psychopathic soul must also die. Man is not
able to make a precise enough judgement to determine guilt beyond that degree. In God's purview, however, this matters not a jot. A psychopathic soul, complete with its faulty hardwiring will
die (or suffer life imprisonment) in punishment for a murder but the spirit will be preserved intact for God's own later
and perfect judgement. So it would seem that man's justice is intended to be rough and ready in these matters since it
could not be anything else. Arguably, even in murder cases proven as psychopathic in nature, some punishment rigorous enough
to prevent a repeat murder should be taken. Whether that be the death penalty as dictated by scripture or incarceration without
hope of parole, either would still seem suitable. A life for a life is a soul for a soul or, more precisely, a body for a
body; there is no loss of spirit either in the original crime or in the ultimate punishment. All is redeemed in the final
analysis. It looks like I have just justified
the death penalty in cases of proven murder; this was certainly not my intention at the outset of writing this paper!
|
