Moral Molecules
Paul Zak is professor of Economics and Department Chair and director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University. He’s also trying to make a name for himself in the study of evolutionary mechanisms and their effect on human behavior.
Paul Zak leans on studies involving a hormone known as “oxytocin.” Those of you who have children may have heard of this. Those of you who know animal husbandry may know of it as well. Oxytocin is the hormone in mammals that promotes certain maternal mechanisms. For instance, it is known to facilitate nest building and pup retrieval in rats and acceptance of offspring in sheep. In humans oxytocin stimulates milk ejection during lactation and uterine contraction during labor.
Oxytocin is a hormone that promotes feelings of well being and happiness. For this reason Paul Zak proposes that people’s sense of morality is driven by oxytocin. How does this work? Simple; when someone is pleased by their actions they release oxytocin. Oxytocin makes you feel happy. When you feel happy, you want more of that happiness. Because oxytocin is only found in mammals, it is therefore proposed that this is one of the key mechanisms that drives mammals to the top of the food chain, over reptiles and other “less evolved” animals. Human morality is therefore nothing more than a response to pleasure and driven solely by the feelings of happiness created by the release of oxytocin.
It’s here that we call cart before the horse.
According to the web site by the name oxytocin.org, it appears as though the full truth is a little more complicated:
Turner and her colleagues tested the idea that oxytocin is released in response to intense emotional states in addition to physical cues. Twenty-six non-lactating women between the ages of 23 and 35 were asked to recall and re-experience a past relationship event that caused them to feel a positive emotion, such as love or infatuation, and a negative emotion, such as loss or abandonment… The results, on average, were of borderline significance – relaxation massage caused oxytocin levels to rise slightly and recollection of a negative emotion caused oxytocin levels to fall slightly. Recollection of a positive emotion, on average, had no effect.
What surprised the researchers, however, was how differently each woman responded. Some participants showed substantial increases and decreases while others were largely unaffected… Different questionnaires, including the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems and the Adult Attachment Scale, were used to assess each woman’s previous experiences with personal and close relationships. The results were significantly correlated with the recorded changes in bloodstream oxytocin levels.
Women whose oxytocin levels rose in response to massage and remembering a positive relationship reported having little difficulty setting appropriate boundaries, being alone, and trying too hard to please others. Women whose oxytocin levels fell in response to remembering a negative emotional relationship reported greater problems with experiencing anxiety in close relationships.
“It seems that having this hormone “available” during positive experiences, and not being depleted of it during negative experiences, is associated with well-being in relationships,” said Turner.
In addition, women who were currently involved in a committed relationship experienced greater oxytocin increases in response to positive emotions than single women. The researchers speculate that a close, regular relationship may influence the responsiveness of the hormone, said Turner.
Trust.
Zak’s research is all predicated on the concepts of trust and trustworthiness. If one has a certain trustworthiness one’s trust garners a higher pleasure response than if one’s trust is low. Thus, more highly moral people, i.e. people who are highly trustworthy, have more pleasurable, happy lives.
So, the question needs to be asked; what makes one trustworthy? Furthermore, if moral people live happier lives, then why aren’t there more highly trustworthy people?
This research is a perfect example of the cart before the horse. The premise is that through some accident of genetics humans developed the oxytocin hormone and that through subsequent accidents of evolution the organisms began to use oxytocin as a means of determining moral law. What feels good is what is good. Therefore, sexual intercourse must be good. Except, in many circumstances, it’s not moral. The concepts begin to break at the point of their greatest interest.
Oxytocin is released by both men and women during orgasm. The feelings of contentment and peace that follow a sexual encounter are literally the result of an internally created drug. They are a temporary effect of a chemical response. If this instance of increased levels of oxytocin is an indicator, it indicates that morality and chemistry are not conjoined; that is, unless there is no immoral sex act. Who is prepared to make that assertion? I would warrant that even the most ardent naturalist would have a problem making that claim. Why? Because they would have to agree that pleasure is found when both partners have equal, or near equal interest in the behavior.
Thus we arrive at the necessity of society. Pleasure derived from the release of oxytocin is always predicated on a form of relationship; a form of community. Yet, community is predicated not on pleasure, but on rules. Often in a community our personal happiness and pleasure is required to be sacrificed in exchange for the betterment of society. It is through this sacrifice that trust is gained. Then and only then do we have the benefits of that relationship. Morality does not come from oxytocin. Oxytocin comes from morality.
Oxytocin is a hormone that is released after the thought, after the decision to engage in “good” behavior. It is that part of our chemistry that causes the body to react positively to those things which the mind has already decided to do. Why did the mind decide to do them? The naturalist would have to assert that the reason is because of oxytocin. The problem is, in this case we know that the chicken came before the egg. Oxytocin is an effect, not a precursor. At what point did the body decide that giving gifts deserves the reward of oxytocin? While receiving activates dopamine, giving releases oxytocin and dopamine. One would be better served by having received a gift and in fact the research tells us that higher levels of satisfaction are gained from giving, rather than receiving, but that’s not the whole story.
As it turns out, giving is a learned behavior. Children are taught to give and that sharing is good. Children don’t naturally have a “giving gene” that compels them to give. That prompts another question. Is giving more pleasurable simply because of the giving, or because one is taught that giving is good? The research suggests that one receives more pleasure from giving not because of a natural response, but because giving fulfills a basic tenet of society; a tenet taught to almost every Western-Culture (Christian culture) child very early on. Giving arises from trust, greater trust, greater response. We all, each of us, learn to trust through intellect and reason, not through instinct and response. Giving is more pleasurable because it fulfills a moral imperative, not the other way around.
The down side to oxytocin is that it produces an enhanced trust in others, even if they aren’t deserving of such trust. In other words, an artificially enhanced level of oxytocin becomes a false indicator. It leads people to trust more than normal. The presence of more oxytocin is not an indicator of good, or better morals. This indicates that there is yet another mechanism for judging what is and what is not moral than what makes one happy. Moreover, a lower than normal level of oxytocin is linked to negative social influences. It has been proved that persons with very low levels of oxytocin are persons who have experienced early parental separation, or neglect1. Persons with low levels of oxytocin find it difficult to bond socially, but are not necessarily violent, or dangerous. Persons with higher levels of oxytocin may actually be more prone to violence, as it inhibits fear and enhances communal instincts of protection2.
The phrase “if it feels good, do it” may be the greatest slogan the humanists ever invented, but it’s not very realistic. Doing what feels good seldom results in moral behavior, unless those feel-good moments are held within the boundaries of a preexistent morality. Normal, healthy levels of oxytocin are produced in persons who have trust in their fellow man, who have been raised in a normative family environment, and who have already had a good foundation built on solid morals. The moral molecule comes from morality. It does not generate morality.
So the moral of this story is that you can’t attribute an effect as the cause, but you should always look to effects and seek their cause.
- Personality, personality disorder and violence by Mary McMurran, Richard Charles Pages 220-221.
- The “Love Drug” Promotes Prejudice and Violence! – Access Rx Health Blog, January 13, 2011.
Loading ...