Reply to comment

 

If this is the case, then is there a part of the brain that is specific to morality? And does someone who seems to have a weaker “moral compass” come from a less nurturing background? Or is it possible that they could have had a very nourishing  childhood? Even though nature and nurture are both involved, it seems to me that one may be more so than the other. And if so, which one?

 

With this idea of the basis of morality, I began to question which story I like better, Descartes’ or Dickinson’s. Initially, I preferred Dickinson’s because I liked that it was supported by scientific evidence. For example, mental illnesses were originally thought to have been diseases of the mind. Now, it has been shown that they are really the result of alterations to the brain that can be managed with pharmaceuticals. But now I’m not so sure. I think the idea of loopy science is appealing here because further exploration may provide more information about morality. The notion of “getting it less wrong” makes science more approachable by more than just scientists and allows for discovery of new ideas. This discovery of new ideas is what draws me to science and I hope that loopy science eventually prevails over linear science.