Morality and cognitive bias

       Exodus 21: 20:

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property"

            Luke 6:31   

       "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Above are two "morally acceptable" precepts (remember the definition of morality from the last post) set down in the bible.  According to the majority of conservative, evangelical Christians, the bible is, at the very least "the inspired word of god" and to some, inerrant and to be taken literally. Now, if we ask an American evangelical "is slavery is immoral?", and they say yes and then we follow by asking if the golden rule IS moral, and they say yes as well, the conclusion is obvious.

Our morality comes from us and not from scripture.  And the rule of law is indeed the codification of those morals. No doubt that sometimes this morality is proper (our 19th Amendment) and sometimes misguided (our 18th Amendment). In 1772, a case came before the British courts to rule on whether or not a slave in England could be sold to work in the colonies.  Since there was no legislation on slavery in Britain at the time, English Common Law was used. The ruling can be found here (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/rights/slave_free.htm).   America's legal system is based on English Common Law (with the exception of Louisiana), not biblical law, or sharia, or halakha.   I find it alternately amusing and frightening that those so worried about sharia becoming part of our legal system (don't worry, it can't and it won't), are the same people who tend to have a "biblical worldview".

Cognitive bias is simply a distortion in the way we perceive reality.  There are oodles of them and my 2 semesters of Psychology does not allow me the luxury of "expert testimony".  But, we all have them as they are a product of evolutionary processes.  They can be highly beneficial in certain decision-making processes, such as assuming an unknown animal is dangerous (i.e. perhaps erring on the side of caution so as to continue to live).  However, in our modern world, there are social and belief biases that can go a long way in helping to understand how people frame moral arguments.

My opening example addresses a couple of these biases.  Here are a couple more.  When a judge rules on legislation that is an anathema to conservative tenets, such as legal marriage of homosexuals, the cry of "Activist Judges who legislate from the bench" is heard.  However, if the judge rules in favor of a conservative belief, they speak of the importance of the "rule of law" in our country.  Another example would be our 10th Amendment.  Here in Oregon, voters passed the "Death with Dignity Act" was passed in 1994 and affirmed again in 1997. However, in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft (an evangelical Christian conservative) attempted to supersede Oregon's state rights with federal action.  This was applauded by the conservative right, despite Oregonians voting on it twice.  However, just 2 years later, when the public voted to amend Oregon's constitution to limit marriage to heterosexual couples only, conservatives once again applauded the "rule of law" and "states rights".  Hmmmm..does anyone else see the bias here?

Sometimes these biases border on hypocrisy.  Conservative and religious states (who claim that our morals come from god) in the USA rank near the top in teen pregnancy ( http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2009/01/08/teen-birthrates-where-does-your-state-rank)  divorce rates and porn subscriptions (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/06/27/opinion/20090627blowchart.html); all no-nos according to the "good book".

Again, recognition of these biases not only compel us to critically self-examine our own bias but also to attempt to base moral behavior on something empirical, rather than an outdated belief system.  In the same way that Copernicus and Galileo disproved the biblical contention of a earth-centered universe using empirical data, so we should look at moral questions with the same tools in an attempt to be as unbiased as possible.