>> Some of the study's authors think this finding vindicates emotions. Since people with VMPC damage are "abnormally 'utilitarian,' " they argue, emotions are necessary to produce "normal judgments of right and wrong." In fact, the authors add, "By showing that humans are neurologically unfit for strict utilitarian thinking, the study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different philosophies for compatibility with human nature."

>> We won't even need drugs. Last year, psychologists proved they could boost people's willingness to kill in a utilitarian dilemma just by showing them a five-minute clip from Saturday Night Live.

>> Today, the Neurotechnology Industry Organization is lobbying for a federal initiative to study the ethics as well as the mechanics of brain science. "Right now, we're discovering the seat of morality," warns NIO President Zack Lynch. "In 10 to 15 years, we'll have the technologies to manipulate it."

http://www.slate.com/id/2162998/nav/tap2/

Those some crazy calculations. I wonder if they're right.

"five-minute clip from Saturday Night Live."

I wanna see that clip.

"...the study suggests that neuroscience may be able to test different philosophies for compatibility with human nature."

That's some interesting wording ... true and profound!

Hmm.  " A portion of this article appears in the Sunday Washington Post" -- which appeared -- April First!

A connection?  I'm unsure.

The utilitarian dilemma is like that thing with the train: you will kill one person by flipping the switch of the tracks, but if you do nothing five people will die.

VMPC damaged folks will flip the switch because saving +4 people is better than feeling responsible for the death of one.

(Something about free will gratuitously included here.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World

It's only a matter of time before we have hypnopaedic education, either via pillow speakers: "I don't want to be an Alpha, oh no.  They're awfully clever, but work really hard" or by chemical means.

"VMPC damaged folks will flip the switch because saving +4 people is better than feeling responsible for the death of one."

I think normal people believe that it is a morally acceptable action but wouldn't do it themselves.

It's from an article arguing for moral judgement are universal, which I cannot locate now.