Counter‐intuitive moral judgement following traumatic brain injury

Abstract

Several neurological patient populations, including traumatic brain injury (TBI), appear to produce an abnormally 'utilitarian' pattern of judgements to moral dilemmas; they tend to make judgements that maximize the welfare of the majority, rather than deontological judgements based on the following of moral rules (e.g., do not harm others). However, this patient research has always used extreme dilemmas with highly valued moral rules (e.g., do not kill). Data from healthy participants, however, suggest that when a wider range of dilemmas are employed, involving less valued moral rules (e.g., do not lie), moral judgements demonstrate sensitivity to the psychological intuitiveness of the judgements, rather than their deontological or utilitarian content (Kahane et al., Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 2011, 393). We sought the moral judgements of 30 TBI participants and 30 controls on moral dilemmas where content (utilitarian/deontological) and intuition (intuitive/counter-intuitive) were measured concurrently. Overall TBI participants made utilitarian judgements in equal proportions to controls; disproportionately favouring utilitarian judgements only when they were counter-intuitive, and deontological judgements only when they were counter-intuitive. These results speak against the view that TBI causes a specific utilitarian bias, suggesting instead that moral intuition is broadly disrupted following TBI.

An Emotional Agent for Moral Impairment Rehabilitation in TBI Patients

“…Furthermore, Hutcherson et al (2015) illustrated the interplay between utilitarian and emotional appraisal during moral judgment based on moral values: utilitarian and emotional moral appraisals are computed separately and later integrated in a moral value response. Furthermore, TBI individuals seem to exhibit a particularly utilitarian pattern of judgments in moral dilemmas (Rowley et al, 2018). In our view, the emotional appraisal is the one of the reasons behind the impaired performance we observed in TBI patients, resulting in non standard moral judgments.…”

“…As Moretti et al ( 2009 ) point out, TBI individuals whose brain damage involves areas such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex can perform moral judgments (in terms of right/wrong), but show impairments in the emotional counterpart, in what is often referred to as “moral emotions selective impairment.” Furthermore, Hutcherson et al ( 2015 ) illustrated the interplay between utilitarian and emotional appraisal during moral judgment based on moral values: utilitarian and emotional moral appraisals are computed separately and later integrated in a moral value response. Furthermore, TBI individuals seem to exhibit a particularly utilitarian pattern of judgments in moral dilemmas (Rowley et al, 2018 ). In our view, the emotional appraisal is the one of the reasons behind the impaired performance we observed in TBI patients, resulting in non standard moral judgments.…”

Moral reasoning, moral decision‐making, and empathy in Korsakoff’s syndrome

“…Abstract moral dilemmas -Moral decision-making Ten abstract moral dilemmas, earlier developed by Kahane et al (2011), were presented with a comparable administration method as Rowley et al (2018). The dilemmas were presented as cartoon drawings accompanied with short stories.…”

Immoral behaviour following brain damage: A review

“…Conversely, bvFTD and ABI patients with vmPFC damage perform comparably to controls during 'impersonal' scenarios involving the indirect harm of one, to save others. Here, both groups typically endorse a utilitarian option to maximize welfare, for example, pulling a lever to direct a tramcar away from five people towards one person (Ciaramelli et al, 2007;Koenigs et al, 2007;Mendez & Shapira, 2009;Moretto et al, 2010;Taber-Thomas et al, 2014; however see Rowley, Rogish, Alexander, & Riggs, 2017). In the absence of a strong negative emotional reaction to the perception of harming another, patients with damage to the vmPFC do not experience an emotional aversion and instead may rely on cognitive processes which maximize welfare.…”