PHI2603-Disc2
MO-MO
Topic-Discussion2.pdf
This is a graded discussion: 30 points possible
due -
Discussion 2 53 57
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 1 of 58
Search entries or author
After reviewing the video about Gazzaniga's research from split brain
studies, and Narvaez's theory of Triune Ethics, what effect, if any do you
think that such an experiment would have on the patient’s triune ethical
decision making? Do you think that a medical intervention should be able to
alter a person’s ethical decision making? What influence, if any, do you think
that brain research ought to have on moral action in humans?
Submission
Our discussions are a valuable opportunity to have thoughtful conversations
regarding a specific topic. You are required to provide a comprehensive
initial post with 3–4 well-developed paragraphs that include a topic
sentence and at least 3–5 supporting sentences with additional details,
explanations, and examples. In addition, you are required to respond
substantively to the initial posts of at least two other classmates. All posts
should be reflective and well written, meaning free of errors in grammar,
sentence structure, and other mechanics.
Grading
This discussion is worth 30 points toward your final grade and will be
graded using the Discussion Rubric. Please use it as a guide toward
successful completion of this discussion. For information on how to view the
rubric, refer to this Canvas Community Guide
(https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/DOC-10577-4212540120) .
Unread Subscribe
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 2 of 58
Reply
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)
Ansley Read (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)
Jun 7, 2023
Good evening Professor, classmates,
After reading, listening to, and watching the topics in this module based
on Triune's ethics, split-brain studies, and doing a little bit more research
on my own I find that Gazzaniga's experiment can cause some rift in
Truine's ethical decision-making, here is a little background and why I
believe so, Doctor and Scientist Gazzaniga severed the corpus callosum
of a patient in a study (Joe) who suffered from frequent seizures he
would have 2-3 times a day and wasn't able to manage well, and after the
surgery was performed, this study was documented with the patient for
over a decade. Joe was able to manage his seizures, adapt and function
as normal with little to no issues at all considering there's no connection
between the left and right brain; your left brain controls your speech and
complex thoughts, whereas your right brain is in charge of visuals,
thinking and motor skills.
Even though Joe shows no sign of struggling with everyday work and
doing mundane tasks, he responds, like in the video, to words, and texts
on the screen differently per what side of the brain is processing and
receiving information. Since Joe is unable to have the left and right brain
connection together, his lobes work independently.
I do not think that a medical intervention with the means of having a
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 3 of 58
Reply
great neuroscientist like Dr. Gazzaniga should impact a person's ethical
decision-making with the assumption that the person involved has a
healthy right and left lobe of course. Even with the sides working
independently, you would still be able to process information and make a
decision, perhaps at a different speed. For example, when you're playing
a video game and you are learning the controls, you become familiar with
the left and right sides of the controller and are able to, by instinct
recognize that the left side may control your perception or visual on the
screen ( looking around), whereas your right control would move your
character in the direction you would like to go.
The brain is a very complex part of our being, I believe in finding
solutions, but I don't necessarily agree, in brain research that a man
should be able to alter someone's moral reasoning rather than to try and
understand; without this understanding ( in my opinion ), and trying to
alter someone's beliefs, without the background from the patient
involved, and their consent, feels like a form of social control?
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 11, 2023
Reply
Very good points here...what do you think about the prevalent use of
psychological and mood-altering drugs on children (possibly on 1 in
5 with 'behavioral problems" --ADHD, depression, social anxiety, etc.--
- who have no ability to consent and may have permanent changes to
their brain development cause by these drugs? Is this ethical?
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 4 of 58
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)
Ansley Read (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)
Jun 12, 2023
Reply
Good evening Professor,
that's a great question and it is tricky to say what is right and
what is wrong when it comes to someone's child. I am not a
parent, but I know if I had a kid and I am aware that I tried and
have exhausted every avenue first, I would consider medication
for my kid. Do I think to a point you need to as a parent protect
your child from things that may not be necessary now? Yes, BUT if
this causes my child to suffer more from lack of health, focus, and
happiness; this would be my job to make a decision that can be
hopefully temporary, and perhaps the need for medication
dwindles over time as they grow up into who they're meant to be.
Having depression and social anxiety, or any form really, stems
mostly from genetics and it cannot be helped. We cannot always
say it is medications that would alter our children's
developmental growth when they may be genetically predisposed.
To close my thoughts, I think there is a time and a place and I do
believe there's an exception to the rule when your kiddo is
predisposed, and again, every avenue ( in my opinion) was
exhausted prior, you as a parent should make the best decision
for your child when they may be scared, unhappy or struggling.
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 5 of 58
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 12, 2023
Reply
So you'd give a cautious "yes" answer to this question--so
long as parents have really carefully considered and are very
well informed about the decision?
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)
Ansley Read (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)
Jun 13, 2023
Reply
I would give a cautious yes. There's a lot of things in life
we shouldn't do , but I would consider quality of life with
some of those factors to make those decisions too!
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Mary Harris (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Jun 13, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 6 of 58
Reply
Hi Ansley,
I agree for finding solutions to help mankind but not at the expense
of altering the moral reasoning of another person. It kind of make me
think of the phrase, "do as I say and not as I do." Unfortunately, it will
be taking away the emotions and learning capabilities. This
conversation is so broad, cause as I'm responding to your post, we
actually have things set up in our today's society as a form of social
control. No disrespect, just thinking.... For example, the way we wear
our hair, the way we wear our clothes, what we listen to on the radio,
what we watch on the television, etc. Some people live off the grid
and don't know what's going on in our world. Shucks! I'm in the
middle of it all and sometimes I don't have a clue what's going on. I
digress!
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)
Tatiana Johnson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)
Jun 15, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 7 of 58
Reply
Hi Ansley,
I never could play those types of video games where you control two
different tasks of one person however, I do understand your point. A
person will still be able to make a decision but a medical intervention
will not be able to impact the timing or what the decision may be as
long as both hemispheres are healthy. I feel as if the decision that
may be made will not be understood by others that don't understand
his situation because both brains are needed to make a logical
decision.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/130153)
Renee Burgess (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/130153)
Jun 8, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 8 of 58
Reply
When watching the experiment done by Gassaniga I was completely
interested and impressed at how amazing the brain can be. My son
doesn't have split brain but he suffered a Grade 4 bleed on the brain in
both hemispheres that left him with a now resolved Hydrocephalus
diagnosis. The brain's capability to work when parts are damaged or
missing is incredible. I think that once the brain was surgically split on
the patient in this study this eliminated the triune ethics and decision
making. How is the left and right brain able to communicate and make
effective decisions?
A medical intervention I feel should be a case by case thing if that would
ever happen. I can see the good and bad to come from it. If someone is
dealing with conditions where this would benefit it would be good. I
wonder if this intervention could change the decision making of
criminals? Definitely slightly unethical but possible. In the end, this
should be left up to the individual person.
I don't think the research should have any effect on moral actions. Morals
are taught and learned and in my personal opinion it's up to the person
to hold themselves accountable for their morals and actions in life.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)
Ansley Read (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/89590)
Jun 8, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 9 of 58
Reply
Good evening ma'am,
welcome to discussion 2!! I am so happy there is another post
besides my own now, yay!! I would have to agree with you that the
brain is an amazing organ and most importantly, what keeps us alive
altogether. Like you Ms. Renee, I too am curious if a medical
intervention with a criminal could change their way of thinking for the
greater good... or would perhaps severing the connection cause those
thoughts still and make those thoughts even stronger?... Something
indeed to think about... thank you for sharing ma'am!
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 11, 2023
Reply
Interesting personal example! What do you think though of doing
brain experiments on, say, criminals convicted of life-sentence or
death penalty crimes, without their consent, if these experiments may
have the effect of 'curing' whatever behavioral problem made them
criminals? --would this be unethical?
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 11, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 10 of 58
Reply
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/130153)
Renee Burgess (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/130153)
Jun 11, 2023
Reply
Hmmm.... this could be unethical but isn't most experiments until
they tend to prove to help a situation? Maybe depending on the
crime it could be a part of their sentencing. If the results are
successful this could end certain life sentences or lengthy
sentences.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 12, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 11 of 58
Reply
That's an interesting point....my guess is that , as current
medical ethics and civil rights law stands now, forcibly giving
a prisoner a medical procedure of drug against his/her will,
would be unconstitutional, and in violation of the Belmont
standards for medical ethics and others Guiding Principles
for Ethical Research | National Institutes of Health (NIH)
(https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical-
research-trials-you/guiding-principles-ethical-
research#:~:text=Guiding%20Principles%20for%20Ethical%20
Research%201%20Social%20and,7%20Respect%20for%20pote
ntial%20and%20enrolled%20participants%20) ....But I know
that many sex offenders , for instance, have agreed to
undergo experimental drug therapy for suppressing their
urges...but this was voluntary-consentual.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Mary Harris (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Jun 13, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 12 of 58
Reply
Hey Renee,
Thank you for sharing personal experience about your son. I recently
studied that there are approximately 30 trillion cells in the human
body and our body makes approximately 3.8 million cells every
second! Even though our brain has a left and right side. We are some
powerful beings. If we experience something new it makes take us
some time to get used to it, so when the experience is repeated our
brain waves travel more quickly because we have done the task
repeatedly. You know like taking a wrong turn down an unfamiliar
street or traveling down the highway to a new town. The more we do
it, the more we are adjusted to it. I know for me; this is my preferred
learning style.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)
Tatiana Johnson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)
Jun 15, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 13 of 58
Reply
Hi Renee,
I agree with your statement that after the left and right hemisphere
was split it eliminated the option of the decision making. I believe
that certain parts of our brain have to communicate with one another
to form a rational decision but I don't believe that the whole part of
both hemispheres will be needed. The question is what parts of the
brain can create a decision?
I also think that the decisions we make are based on numerous
things such as emotion, experience, and personal relations. Criminals
may operate the same way such as a person's child being in danger
and a stranger's child being in danger may get two different
reactions.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/126985)
Heather Tazumi (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/126985)
Jun 15, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 14 of 58
Reply
Hi Renee,
I also thought the brain being unable to fully communicate with itself
was concerning. As shown in the video, each hemisphere processes
information differently. If the brain is unable to fully communicate
with itself, it's possible a detail could be missed when any decision is
made. It may not be a huge deal if the decision was for a smaller
matter, like deciding to take your bike or your car to the grocery
store. If the decision was for an ethical matter, like stopping in the
middle of the street to save an animal, that missing detail could
make a difference.
I don't think medical intervention should be involved. However, I do
see your point. If it would change criminals' decision making for the
better than it would hugely benefit society. If or when someone
decides to research medical intervention on ethical decision making,
a lot of thought would have to be put into it. Not only for accurately
researching the topic, but also to keep the process as ethical as
possible.
I agree that morals are taught. Morals can be learned from another
person or by life experiences. I also thought that everyone has
different views on what is and isn't moral.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110927)
Madison Buehnemann (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110927)
Sunday
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 15 of 58
Reply
Hi Renee,
I really enjoyed the thought provoking question of if interventions
could be used on aiding criminals. I feel like it's definitely something
that would need to be a consented to from the individual, however it
could also have a utilitarianism effect by making society a better
place with prisoners who have been found unfit for release based on
their continuous actions. The likelihood of that ever happening
though, I feel would be very slim based on the amount of oversight it
would require to ensure that each individuals human rights were
being honored.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/117309)
Ashley Biddle (She/Her) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/117309)
Sunday
Reply
Hello Renee, I would like to start by saying thank you for sharing the
information about your son. He is so brave, and I hope he has an
amazing rest of his life. I agree on your view about medical
intervention, if it is necessary then ethics should not be of concern.
Also, I think one day scientist will find a way to control humans and
the moral will change without people realizing they are being
manipulated.
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 16 of 58
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Mary Harris (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Jun 13, 2023
I would like to say after reviewing the video about Gazzaniga's research
from split brain studies, and Narvaez's theory of Triune Ethics Theory
(TET), that it was a wow moment for me! Alan Alda made me felt like I
was there in the video as he was with one of the world's leading brain
scientists, Mike Gazzaniga. When I think about the word triune, I
automatically think of something that means the number three even
though our brains have a left hemisphere and right hemisphere. LOL!
Seriously, the video showed that Joe (the patient) had suffered from
epileptic seizures and to control the seizures, a surgeon severed the
connection between the two hemispheres of his brain. Cutting the brain
to prevent electric shocks that cause seizures. But as the video played
the surgery also prevented the left and right hemispheres of his brain
from communicating with each other. I understand the left side of the
brain controls the right side of the body and the right side of the brain
controls the left side of the body. The interesting thing to me is that the
observation shows only the independent side when speaking couldn't see
shape recognition or picture or vice versa.
My case and point: Yes, Joe epilepsy has been under control, but it
makes me think he will be dependent on others more than usual when it
comes to making his own personal decision (ethics) about things,
especially in life period. I'm led to believe whatever value system he had
downloaded in his brain before the surgery, makes me wonder if it was
lost and he have to start all over again. Especially since the video showed
only the vision and speaking observations. I don't believe that medical
intervention should be able to alter a person's ethical decision making. I
believe everyone should be able to take accountability for their choices
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 17 of 58
Reply
and any consequences that come their way. A person should be given the
right to learn and improve on their thinking capabilities without any
alternations. I do believe we are creatures of habits, but our character
reflects our what we seen and turned into action of what we said.
I don't believe the brain research should ought to be an influence on
morality for humans. Because to me it's like being trapped in the corners
of your mind. You not given freedom to think or make a decision whether
it is morally right or wrong. I believe a person that is swayed by thinking
how another person think is just duplicated and without being a designer
original. We are all human, but each of us are different just as every
person fingerprint is different. The influence of on moral action will not
let the person use their own judgement or even to know what failure is,
so they can experience what success is like to them. This reminds me of
the video we previously viewed about the young apprentice approached
the master philosopher, "how to do I become a philosopher?" The
brilliant answer to this question was astounding, to be like the master
philosopher was to deny who he is. This is what I'm stating, if the brain
research has influence on moral action, then we (humans) will have to
meet their standards of moral actions when it comes to choices and
actions and not reflecting on our own value system, emotions, conscious
and decision-making.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 14, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 18 of 58
Reply
This is a very profound reflection on several levels--It makes me
curious what you'd think about the prospect, if it was available (and I
wouldn't be surprised if some day it is developed), of implanting a
microchip in the right part of a person's brain, that would enable
them to instantly download any information they require --say a
language that they want to learn or any course they have to take in
college. So that if you wanted to master any kind of information, you
could just acquire it in an instant instead of having to do the work we
do now to attain it....would this be a good thing? --what about
memories, so that if, say, you wanted to take a trip to Europe, you
could download a complete memory of the places and the
experiences and have them, even though you'd never gone (it would
certainly save time and money)...would this be OK?
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Mary Harris (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Jun 14, 2023
Great Day Professor,
My goodness! The way our society is heading, especially in
technology I wouldn't be surprised if scientist are not working on
the implantation of a microchip into a person's brain. There may
be no information released to public at this time, but I'm willing
to bet some type of work already in process towards this
particular goal and it will be under the guidelines, "the common
good approach". For instance, I thought about the cloned sheep!
Dolly the cloned sheep was introduced to our world back in 1996.
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 19 of 58
Reply
Dolly the cloned sheep was introduced to our world back in 1996.
Of course, this type of experiment was greatest breakthrough
which was important to scientists.
I'm not trying to sound like a pessimistic person, but I will hate
the wrong people receive a chip in their brain and have access to
download whatever they want at their fingertips. It will be a
dangerous! My rhyme and reasoning comes from all the things
America alone is dealing with every day, not to mention the world.
It's so many scammers and hackers in our society. I can't imagine
people paying for a particular chip to have inserted in their brains
for numerous of reasons and hackers found out how to access the
satellites and change the information. Now the buyer thinking
they will experience Europe and only experience someone's
backyard in the U.S. because a neighbor's yard set up with the
different Greek god statues! LOL (FUNNY not funny).
On the other hand without a chip insertion, according to Babbel, a
software that offers better opportunities to hear real-life
conversations to learn a new language and Facebook developed a
virtual headset to help society experience places and things
without going outside the home. Interfering with another human
intellect is not okay with me. I know we live in this microwave
society. Don't nobody have any patience anymore. Our society is
steadily pushing the narrative, It's all about saving time and
money, but I want to know in whose reality am I saving time for
and how much? Okay, I'm getting off the subject again. Anyways,
I never tried the virtual headset, but I believe it is the forerunner
to introduce the microchip in the brain without making the public
suspicious of the risks because it will be for the "common good."
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 20 of 58
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 15, 2023
Reply
that's a very insightful response to this prospect, I'd say, and I
tend to agree with you about it. I love your comment "Our
society is steadily pushing the narrative, It's all about saving
time and money, but I want to know in whose reality am I
saving time for and how much? " ....that hits the nail right on
the head!
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Mary Harris (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Jun 15, 2023
Reply
If only we (people in general, including me) could practice
more patience, it would make life less stressful. Therefore,
our brainpower can be used for the greater good.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 21 of 58
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 16, 2023
Reply
That's for sure!
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Chloe Moser (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Jun 15, 2023
Reply
Hi Mary,
I agree with you that medical influence should not play a part
in ethical decision making. The very nature of ethics and morals is
based on human interaction with others as well as themselves.
Changing the structure of the brain would alter the very function of it
(in theory). So, if alterations were made the brain it would change the
reasoning behind the ethical or unethical behavior of a person due to
outlying factors that do not play a part in general ethics as we
understand it currently. Essentially, it would be an entirely different
study on how changing the structure of the brain influences "normal"
ethical decisions, as ethics is based on the current model of the
brain and how things naturally exist/play out.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Mary Harris
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 22 of 58
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Jun 16, 2023
Reply
Hey Chloe,
I'm learning there's a risk in everything, but to have medical
influence to play a part in ethical decision-making is very
unsettling for me. I think in the long run as a person age the right
brain cells begins to dwindle, therefore a person may have
difficulty with memorization.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)
Quinteria Robinson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)
Sunday
Hello Mary,
I agree with your reasoning behind medical interventions affecting
ethical decision-making. We wouldn't be who we are today without
personal interaction and environment. This makes individuals
different from one another and helps people learn. If we didn't have
that facing problems could be more difficult.
Your question on Joe's ethical decision-making got me thinking.
Maybe in theory since his brain was no longer communicating, he
could still remember things being ethically good or bad, but the
reasoning behind it may be harder to reach, instituting a longer
thought process.
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 23 of 58
Reply
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)
Hailey Petersen (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)
Sunday
Reply
Hey Mary,
I also find it fascinating how the left side of the brain controls the
right and vise versa. It's got me thinking are there 2 separate brains
fused together to make one, because of of the guys from the video
said it's a picture here of someone communicating almost with
another person. It's crazy!!
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)
Tatiana Johnson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/71694)
Jun 15, 2023
Good morning,
After deliberation, I think Narvaez's theory of Turine Ethics would have
some effect on any patient's triune ethical decision-making. Gazzaniga's
experiment was able to gather information from neuroscience tests by
flashing pictures and observing the communication of the right and left
hemispheres of the brain. In contrast, motivating the brain to perform in
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 24 of 58
Reply
hemispheres of the brain. In contrast, motivating the brain to perform in
a particular way based on research is possible yet limited to its
expectations. Narvaez's theory seeks to explain the difference in moral
functions through context and using that information to evoke a
particular action. Although, Gazzaniga was able to interpret the
difference, no matter what he showed to the patient he still acted the way
his brain thought best fit. For example instead of drawing a "toadstool"
he drew a toad and a stool meaning his brain could not comprehend the
context the way a regular brain would no matter what side the words were
viewed on.
I do not think a medical intervention could alter a person's ethical
decision-making. Ethical decision-making is based on human cognition
by manipulated information interpretation. So even if we participated in
a medical experiment that wanted us to perform a certain way we
wouldn't because our brain is based on our alternative judgment. That's
why we make mistakes; although we may know what's right from wrong
we still go through the process of our own personal experience before
reacting which is cognitive bias.
The influence that brain research has on moral actions in humans is the
process we go through before making a decision. Brain research
identifies the communication of both hemispheres that is transmitted
over neural systems. Our brain has different sections that interact to
produce mental activities. Brain research specifies these sections so that
scientists know what sections are being used to create ethical decision-
making.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Chloe Moser (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 25 of 58
Jun 15, 2023
Reply
Hello Tatiana,
I guess I've never thought of the brain being capable of
making solitary decisions, but it is the only part of our bodies that
makes decisions and produces a phenomena that we label 'thoughts.'
It would be very interesting to see if the brain continued attempts to
act independently or autonomously despite its structure being
altered, as structure if what denotes function in biological study.
Regardless of the brain's capabilities, I also do not agree that
medical intervention would be considered ethical with all of the
variables that exist in that specific line of research, as it makes out
decisions for us and cannot be entirely predictable when it comes to
experiments that have never been tested before (at least not on a
regular or scientifically sound basis). Great explanation and
observations!
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 16, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 26 of 58
Reply
Very intelligent discussion Tatiana..... Your statement "Our brain has
different sections that interact to produce mental activities. Brain
research specifies these sections so that scientists know what
sections are being used to create ethical decision-making." raises a
question for me that a number of philosophers and neuroscientists
have also suggested recently-- they claim that , if all our
thoughts/feelings /decisions are just products of our brain activity,
and our brain activity is a physical--chemical reactive process that we
don't control, then we really aren't responsible for our own
thoughts/emotions/decisions and therefore can't be held responsible
for anything we do. Sounds crazy, but makes sense in a way, no? what
do you think?
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/117309)
Ashley Biddle (She/Her) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/117309)
Sunday
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 27 of 58
Reply
Hello Tatiana, I appreciate your view on this subject because it was
hard for me to decide what side I should be on. I do think that the
split-brain operation would have an effect on triune ethical decision
making. Just as you stated the patient does think differently because
his lobes are not communicating so making decisions are different
than what they use to be. Also, I understand your view on medical
intervention, but have you thought about if a person had to choose
between their ethics and their life. Some people who have brain
surgery understand the risk that they might not come back the same,
but people still get the surgery. I think life is more important than
ethics and if a surgery is needed and my ethics have to change, I will
take the surgery.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/126985)
Heather Tazumi (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/126985)
Jun 15, 2023
I think the experiment would affect a person by not allowing their mind
to be able to fully communicate with itself. The brain was created so both
halves are connected and work together. The left hemisphere is the
conscious mind, and the right hemisphere is the subconscious mind.
Some people theorized that dreams are the subconscious mind’s
attempt to communicate with the conscious mind. Some people have
also theorized that the brain uses dreams to organize itself. With the
corpus callosum split, how do the conscious and subconscious minds
communicate? In the video, Joe was able to identify words on a screen
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 28 of 58
when he allowed each part of the brain to have its turn. If the right
hemisphere never has its turn to represent itself, would he miss
something that was crucial when making any decisions? Without
communication between both hemispheres (conscious and
subconscious) we may not have all the details needed to make an
accurate (ethical) decision. Also, I think whichever hemisphere is
"dominate" at the time would be making or performing the decision.
Narvaez's experiment could influence either hemisphere to make an
ethical decision. However, it depends on how each hemisphere
processes its experience with the experiment.
I don’t think medical intervention should alter a person’s decision
making. When I read the second question, it reminded me of Two-Face,
Harvey Dent, from Batman: Arkham Asylum. In this specific comic, Two-
Face was deciding if he had to use the bathroom with playing cards. He
was unable to decide in time and soiled himself. When Batmen
questioned the doctor, the doctor excitedly explained to Batman that
they were trying to have Two-Face be able to make decisions without
relying on the flip of a scorched coin and were making progress. Batman
mentioned that Two-Face was in worse condition than before since Two-
Face was having difficulty deciding on a simple matter and was
constantly in a state of fear and uncertainty. Even though this scenario
didn’t involve ethical decision making (or physically altering the brain), it
made me think of what could happen if medical invention would alter our
brains. Would we be in a worse state than before medical invention?
Would a part of ourselves, our character, be taken away? I feel like we
would question the decisions we make before and after they were made.
If decisions are made primarily by the left hemisphere, there's a
possibility of overthinking a decision since it's known as the logical part
of the brain. The left hemisphere would be attempting to gather all the
details to the point it may retrieve too many details. If a decision was
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 29 of 58
Edited by Heather Tazumi (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/126985) on Jun 16 at 10:58am
Reply
made by the right hemisphere, it's possible it may come up with too may
"what-ifs" or negative scenarios since it's associated with creating
imagination. If an ethical decision resulted negatively, I'm not sure if we
would be able to fully process it or recover from it.
I don’t think brain research should influence moral action. To me it
almost sounds like potential brainwashing or maybe something along the
lines of conditioning. Maybe it could be a guide to which actions are
"moral", but would that result in people would performing those actions
without asking questions or fully evaluating a situation? What actions are
deemed moral? Who makes that determination? There is no person or
being who is 100% moral. Also, people have different opinions on which
actions are “moral”, so justifying those actions wouldn't be easy.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Mary Harris (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/111354)
Jun 15, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 30 of 58
Reply
Heather,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. You asked some good
questions and made some excellent points, especially when you
mentioned decisions are primarily made by the left hemisphere,
there's a possibility of overthinking decisions. But doesn't it stand to
reason that if a person's right brain never works properly, that the left
brain would carry the weight of what the right side is having difficulty
of doing? Of course, it will take time. I thought about blind people.
They are not able to see, but they use their left brain for listening to
what's going on around them and listening (which is the logical part
of the brain) before crossing the street. We (people in general) been
so conditioned to use our eyes of what we see with the natural eyes
(right brain), that we don't fully use our other senses (left brain) to
help us out. I believe that's how we overthink circumstances and
situations when making everyday decisions when it arises.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Chloe Moser (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Jun 15, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 31 of 58
Reply
Hey Heather,
I love the example you used of two face from the Arkham
Asylum comics, great connection and even greater read. It is a very
real possibility though, that a persons' thoughts could become very
convoluted with such a drastic change in the structure of a crucial
organ. would they be able to perform as they did prior to such an
operation? Would they agree with their current self, or miss the
decisions their past self was capable of making? It's very interesting
to think about with the vast amount of variable possibilities, but
definitely not ethical to subject a person to. Definitely a moral conflict
either way you consider it (are people the source of morality, or is
there a goal to be reached when considering the topic?), so I would
say it's best to keep human error from interfering with the natural way
of things.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 16, 2023
Reply
That was an excellent reference to TwoFace! Do you think that there
simply is no way to decide what is 'moral' in an absolute, objective
sense? --let alone how to decide what actions people take for various
reasons would be moral or not?
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/126985)
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 32 of 58
Heather Tazumi (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/126985)
Monday
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 33 of 58
Reply
Good morning Professor Grego,
For the most part, I don't think there is an absolute way to decide
what is moral. To me it seems what's considered moral is more
opinion based and circumstantial.
People are taught about what’s right and wrong/good and bad
starting at a young age. These can be taught by people they
interact with or life experiences. A child could start developing
their morals based on how he or she perceived those lessons or
they take note of other's reactions. As the kid gets older, the kid
realizes the world is not black and white. There are situations
where someone might have to go against their morals for a
greater good. If an “immoral” action was performed for a greater
good, is it still considered immoral or would it be considered
moral?
My thought: Kids are usually taught violence is bad. If kids fight
each other at school, they get suspended by the school and
grounded by their parents. If an adult gets in a fight, the adult
goes to jail and maybe gets sued by their opponent. However,
violence can be used as a form of defense. The military fights for
our country and some people perform martials arts in self-
defense. The military gets praised for defending our country even
though they possibly used violence to do it. A person may still be
alive because that person was able to fight off their attacker. How
does it make sense to consider an action immoral if others get
praised for performing an “immoral” action?
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 34 of 58
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)
Quinteria Robinson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)
Sunday
Reply
Hello Heather,
I really enjoyed reading your post. I do agree with you about the mind
not being able to fully communicate if separate. Without one side how
are you able to make a decision fully? It would be rather difficult
especially if your under pressure. Thinking rapidly and not having
enough time to understand both hemispheres could drastically change
a person reaction. Also, I didn’t register your reference at first
because I’ve never heard of that comic before however you did a great
job summarizing it to show the connection.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)
Hailey Petersen (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)
Sunday
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 35 of 58
Reply
Hello Heather,
I enjoyed reading your analysis, especially the part where you got
deep posing the question pertaining to the about the conscious and
subconscious mind communicating when it comes to a split corpus
callosum. It got me thinking about it relating to ethical decision
making; I feel that moral principles are subconscious and our
knowledge on right and wrong are conscious, so how would a spilt
brain not have a effect on our ethical decision making.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Chloe Moser (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Jun 15, 2023
After reading about Triune Brain theory, as a mortuary science
student who has many anatomy and physiology classes, it does not seem
very plausibly that only three sections of the whole brain can account for
our ethical decision making. From my understanding, the peripheral
nervous system (PNS) communicates with the central nervous system
(CNS) through afferent and efferent pathways - and this includes the
entire brain - to function properly. Though, upon further research into the
brain structures of reptiles, mammals, and humans separately, there is a
clear distinction in structure (which denotes function in biology).
Reptiles have what appears to be the center-most portion of the brain,
mammals that are not humans have an additional layer of tissue, and
humans have an all encompassing layer of tissue on top of that (a
mixture of dura matter and meninges). Seeing as structure denotes
function and humans are the only current animals that seem to have the
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 36 of 58
function and humans are the only current animals that seem to have the
mental capacity for moral and ethical decision making, this theory no
longer appears to be so far reaching. So if the entire brain is comprised
of three main components that contribute to this type of decision
making, why would separating the brain into respective halves interfere
with the function of each independently? That is to say why would two
separate parts of the brain containing all three components function any
differently in terms of logic? The halves of the brain do control the
opposite sides of the body, but do they really function with different
thought processes regardless of the fact that they have the same
structures?
This is what makes Gazzaniga's study so interesting to me, as it
appears to be a very real phenomena when the halves of the brain are
unable to communicate with one another. What essential neural cells are
being severed to cause such discourse in the function of the nervous
system? Until this is concretely understood in the medical field, I think it
would be unethical to perform life changing surgery if it is not absolutely
necessary. In the case of Joe, it was essential to his quality of life to
perform such an operation and he was capable of agreeing to it. The
study of the severed corpus callosum phenomena was simply a side
effect. In this case, it's completely ethical to study the natural
occurrence, as it was not planned for and it was not the intended purpose
of the operation. However, if medical research were to be conducted in
the future, this would not be the case for many individuals, and it would
severely affect their quality of life - as their brain, the control center of
the body, would not function the same ever again. So, in short, I do not
think there should be life changing medical interference just to see of
someone's ethical decision making would be altered. The test subject
would most likely not have a complete understanding of how their
personal life would be affected by this type of operation, not to mention it
would never be the same for them ever again once the operation was
conducted. Non-invasive brain research on similar topics is far more
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 37 of 58
Reply
conducted. Non-invasive brain research on similar topics is far more
ethical in my opinion, as it can provide useful information to the field of
psychology without sacrificing the brain function and quality of life of
individuals who would play useful roles in such research.
I understand that it can be frustrating to conduct reliable, ethical
research on a subject like the brain (or any other human organ for that
matter), because unintended effects of permanent operations or tests
cannot be predicted or studied on a reliable basis. This is to say that I
don't believe this type of research would be sustainable and morally
sound at the same time. There would be a larger amount of inquiries than
willing participants, leaving individuals without enough information to
support hypothesis and essentially deeming a (hypothetically) very small
amount of active participants' sacrifices useless to the project as a
whole. Quintessentially, I believe research that delves into complex moral
issues should remain as non-invasive and impermanent as possible, and
any conclusions drawn from ethical research should be used to the fullest
extent. Anything beyond that would most likely cross the lines of what is
medically ethical to do to an individual or individuals, regardless of how
useful the information gained may be. It is important to consider that
autonomy plays a role in most medical research, which includes the
participants being fully aware and competent of any possible side effects
or outcomes, which would not be possible in this specific line of
research.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Richard Grego (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/1367)
Jun 16, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 38 of 58
Reply
Great analysis! Its sounds then as though you are very cautious about
the idea of interfering with anyone's moral autonomy and
independence in that way/
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Chloe Moser (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Jun 16, 2023
Reply
Most definitely. If all facts are not clear when informing someone
about a life changing procedure, I do not believe it would be
ethical to go ahead with experimentation on human subjects.
Being that research is necessary to know all of the varying factors
and the results of certain operations, it is obvious that complete
transparency is nearly impossible to provide to test subjects. If
someone were to know of all effects that are possible, research
would not need to be conducted in the first place.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/126985)
Heather Tazumi (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/126985)
Jun 16, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 39 of 58
Reply
Hi Chloe,
It didn't occur to me how the CNS and PNS would be affected. Based
on what I saw in the video, I thought each hemisphere was
processing information differently and representing themselves in
their own way. Maybe it is possible each hemisphere is processing
the information in the same way.
I also thought that this research would bring up a lot concerns, which
would discourage anyone from participating. Unfortunately, no one
will know the life changing consequences of this research until it
starts. To keep such possible consequences to a minimum it probably
is the best option to perform the research with minimum invasion or
no invasion, if possible. If this was looked into I wonder what would
happen if too much invasion was necessary.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Chloe Moser (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/129991)
Jun 16, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 40 of 58
Reply
It's so unpredictable when conducting experiments on something
that is not fully understood. The anatomy and physiology of the
brain is a very well known topic in the scientific community, but
the effects of controlled research such as the ones I brought up
are not. It is a very risky thing to subject people to such research
when there are known and unknown variables that could or could
not play a role in the data that results from such experimentation.
This is not to mention that real human beings would be subjected
to experimentation that they couldn't fully grasp given the current
information we have. Would it be useful? Yes, but would it be
ethical? Most likely not.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110927)
Madison Buehnemann (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110927)
Jun 17, 2023
After reading "Moral Development and behaviour under the spotlight of
Neurobiological sciences" by Darcia Narvaez and Jenny L. Vaydich, I feel
like I was finally able to piece together this multifaceted topic, with the
conclusion that brain surgery would not affect the moral decision-making
process in regards to the Triune Ethic Theory. From what I gathered
based on the paper Narvaez wrote, the brain has many ways to elicit
reactions and reasonings. Still, the foundation is based on the social and
emotional development of the individual.
The Triune Ethics Theory consists of three types of "affectively-rooted
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 41 of 58
The Triune Ethics Theory consists of three types of "affectively-rooted
moral orientations emerged from human evolution." While these do
consist of biological structures, Navaez states, "The three motivational
orientations can be significantly shaped by experience." (Narvez, Moral
development and neurobiological sciences, 2008)
The Ethic of Security focuses on self-preservation. The Ethic of
Engagement concerns interpersonal relationships. And The Ethic of
Imagination refers to adapting to ongoing situations.
Regarding Joe's situation in the video, his Corpus callosum was severed
to help eliminate his seizures. The primary function of the corpus
callosum is to connect the left and right hemispheres. It also has
hypothesized functions related to speech, language, vision, and cognitive
behavior. Although the video is brief, Joe did not seem to struggle with
speech, language, or vision issues. However, it is unfair for me to judge
his cognitive abilities with no prior knowledge of his past. He is a good
representation of how a person can continue to live when an extremely
invasive surgery has altered their brain.
My son was born with a brain malformation called Focal Cortical
Dysphasia, affecting his left anterior temporal lobe. It's a fancy way of
saying that his brain was over-developed in utero. FCD has caused him
also to develop epilepsy which affects him cognitively and impairs his
speech and memory. We had no idea he had this condition until he was
nine years old (He is 11 now). Unfortunately, medication has failed to
control his seizures, and as he gets older, his seizures continue to
worsen. Our next step is to discuss brain surgery, and as parents, my
husband and I are faced with making a decision that could alter his life
significantly for the better and potentially for the worse. His quality of life
is of a typical 11-year-old, and we try to keep everything as regular for
him as our other children. We include him in as many conscious
decisions based on his medical condition and help educate him so he
can have as much of a say as possible.
So I feel biased in saying that, no, brain surgery should not be done to
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 42 of 58
Edited by Madison Buehnemann (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110927) on Jun 17 at
1:53pm
Reply
So I feel biased in saying that, no, brain surgery should not be done to
alter the ethical decision-making process. Other avenues, such as
medication and therapy, should be sought out to help aid in making
better decisions versus highly invasive surgery. But also, can you imagine
the restrictions that would be required on the surgeon performing that
type of surgery? Who decides what ethics to instill in someone other than
themselves?
References:
Narvaez, Darcia, and Jenny Vaydich. “Moral Development and Behaviour
under the Spotlight of the Neurobiological ...: EBSCOhost.”
Web.s.ebscohost.com, 1 Sept. 2008,
web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/command/detail?vid=3&sid=606cf567-
b9b7-4232-8570-
f7ede0f1523f%40redis&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNoaWImc2l0ZT1laG9zd
C1saXZl#AN=MFS-33418653&db=fgh. Accessed 17 June 2023.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/108093)
Jadd Kalian (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/108093)
Sunday
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 43 of 58
Reply
Hello, Madison,
Great writing skills! Kind of makes me want to backtrack and rewrite
mine. I do think that surgery could change the moral decision-
making process. When the patient with the brain split was tested, his
brain would process the images differently and easier than the
average person. I do love how you address Professors' questions
though.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/112820)
Sebastian Baez (He/Him) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/112820)
Jun 17, 2023
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 44 of 58
Reply
The split-brain studies conducted by Gazzaniga provide fascinating
insights into the functioning of the brain and its implications for human
cognition and behavior. In relation to Narvaez's theory of triune Ethics,
which suggests that ethical decisions making involves three dimensions:
Ethics of autonomy, Ethics of Community and Ethics of Divinity, the split-
brain studies could potentially have an impact on the patients' triune
ethical decision making.
Regarding whether a medical intervention should be able to alter a
person's ethical decision making, it is essential to approach this
question with caution and ethical considerations. Altering ethical
decision making through medical intervention raises significant ethical
concerns, as it challenges the individual's autonomy and personal values.
Medical interventions should generally aim to improve well-being and
alleviate suffering rather than directly manipulate a person's ethical
judgements.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/108093)
Jadd Kalian (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/108093)
Sunday
Hello Sebastian, I agree the insights were awesome to learn about,
complicated, but awesome. I think the split brain does have an
impact on someone's brain since they aren't connected anymore.
Even in the video, the patient was going through the experiments and
even the Doctor commented on how unique and different he was
doing them. That just shows how the perspective changed. Overall
though good analysis.
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 45 of 58
Reply
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/117309)
Ashley Biddle (She/Her) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/117309)
Sunday
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 46 of 58
After viewing the video about Gazzaniga’s research and the surgery that
he performed, I was amazed at the fact that a person can live with a split
brain. I thought if the lobes were not able to communicate with each
other the body would die off because it would be getting mixed signals
throughout the body. Regarding the patient’s triune ethical decision
making, it seems that the surgery should not affect it at all. The patient
did not seem to struggle to do everyday tasks or function, he just
processed things differently than others. The patient was able to do the
testing better than the host and could possibly make better ethical
decisions than others because the brain can process the information in
both lobes and choose between the answers he came up with.
If there was a choice between medical intervention and personal ethics,
what is more important, the person itself or what they stand for and who
they are? Medical intervention can mean sacrifice. A lot of medical
conditions require sacrifice to heal whether it is hair, body parts,
personality, or ethics. I personally do think a medical intervention should
be able to alter a person’s ethical decision making if it is necessary to
save the person’s life.
Brain research includes the study of cognitive and behavior function of
the brain. This research can one day influence moral action in humans
because researchers can find patterns of neuro activity when performing
a moral action and duplicate it. According to Singularityhub.com,
scientists have found a way to control the mice brain with light called
optogenetics. Opsins are given to mice and computer-programmed light
pulses target the newly light-sensitive neurons in a particular region of
the brain and control their activity. This method can control the mice’s
emotion, sight, memories, addiction, and pain responses. One day this
method is going to be able to work on humans and scientists will be able
to control the moral actions of humans.
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 47 of 58
Reply
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/108093)
Jadd Kalian (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/108093)
Sunday
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 48 of 58
Reply
Neurology is such an interesting/incomprehensible topic. There is so
much more we need to learn about the brain, so I'm for any new
experiment that could help us get there. The fact we only access 10% of
our brain is mind-boggling to me, especially with how far technology has
come. I can't imagine if 5% of the world could have access to 100% of
their brain.
I personally believe the experiment Narvaez was running could be
extremely beneficial to mankind. My bias came from a recent read of "
The 50th Law", Robert Greene speaks about how near life-ending
experiences could really trigger a mind to shift its mentality to becoming
fearless. Fearless in a way not of having fear but being able to risk take
and achieve goals that you would think were impossible previous to
death. In Gazzanig's research, the patient's brain works differently than
others after the split surgery. His brains aren't connected anymore which
helped resolve his seizures, but the downfall is the way he perceives
different things.
I do believe in medical advancements, it's the reason why we are able to
outlive previous generations. Medical intervention could be a massive
breakthrough in our prison system. This could completely alter the way a
person thinks and acts. If someone is up for the change I think it's
completely right to allow said person to undergo this treatment.
As I touched based on in the previous paragraph, brain research could
change the world and alter anyone's psychology for the better. Personally,
I have ADHD and dyslexia, so if I was able to remove these disabilities
by doing a couple of studies or surgeries I would cut my brain in half too.
being able to change one's conscience would be unfathomable, scary, but
unfathomable.
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 49 of 58
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/58603)
Gianna Jackmore (She/Her) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/58603)
Monday
Reply
Hi there, it was really interesting hearing your perspective on this
topic being someone who has neurological disfunctions. would you
be worried about how your thinking or moral/ ethical decision making
process could be altered by the surgery? I hope people with
disorders that could be treated by this surgery could possibly regain
autonomy by having full control of their brain again by getting rid of
their seizures of other issues. thank you for your great post Jadd!
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)
Quinteria Robinson (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/110365)
Sunday
Understanding a person's ethical reasoning after this experiment would
be more challenging. I was reminded of "Both sides now" and how the
patient's left side was making its own decisions as I was reading and
watching the film. He struggled to comprehend why he couldn't control
his movement and why it was acting in such unpredictable ways during
the entire episode. Additional investigations revealed that the right side
of the brain was trying to communicate with him non-verbally.
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 50 of 58
Reply
Similar results were observed during Gazzaniga's research, where Joe
(the patient)'s brain had to function independently after undergoing a
split-brain surgery to treat his epilepsy. Due to the lack of connection,
Joe occasionally needed help grasping the word on the screen through
his drawing during the split-screen test during the film.
With both situations in mind, it is clear how preventing communication
between the brain's hemispheres can lead to a gap in decision-making,
even though one's body may not behave as severely as the first.
With communication between the two hemispheres, you can maintain
sight of the motivations underlying decisions or their moral implications.
A person's ethical judgment should not be affected by medical
intervention. While this could be a positive outcome, as with everything
in the world, there could also be a negative. Who is to argue that whoever
succeeds has the highest moral standards? Or what if someone decides
to make the wrong use of this? This reminded me of a television show
where a hypnotist made one of the employees' murder after hypnotizing
him under the belief that he would be more courageous. The underlying
question is: Could we trust something like this in a world already divided
by problems of right and wrong or good and evil?
Moral action shouldn't be influenced by brain research. Under the guise
that everyone is acting on their own, we may imagine a perfect world in
which everyone operates morally. Otherwise, people wouldn't be allowed
to make their own decisions, which may eliminate the satisfaction of
choosing wisely even in a challenging circumstance.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 51 of 58
Hailey Petersen (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/120852)
Sunday
After watching Gazzaniga's research and reading Narvaez's theory of
Triune Ethics, I think that such an experiment would have a effect on any
patient's triune ethical decision making. Having a corpus callosum
severed eliminates the connection between the hemispheres. Each
hemisphere of the brain is responsible for movement and vision on the
opposite side of the body, so the right hemisphere is responsible for the
left eye and vice versa, so patients drew what they saw with their left eye
and described what they saw with their right eye. The right hemisphere is
involved of processing mental state information such as intention and
belief, which associated with intent-based moral judgement. While the
left hemisphere generates moral judgements based primarily on
outcomes, regardless of the acting intent. The right hemisphere plays a
role in the left hemisphere intent-based moral judgement, and when the
left hemisphere is isolated from the right, it may not default to a moral
perspective.
A medical intervention should not be able to alter a person's ethical
decision making. During ethical decision-making, people evaluate and
select among the alternatives in a manner that is in line with ethical
principles. Healthcare providers prioritize patient well-being, which can
sometimes mean respecting patients’ wishes they may disagree with.
One's moral principles shouldn't be changed because people's morals
don't ever change when coming across other situations. Ethical decision
making can help to identify, understand and resolve ethical issues that
arise in patient care by helping to clarify why certain actions are right or
wrong.
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 52 of 58
Reply
Brain research should not be a influence on moral action. Moral actions
involve necessary steps to transform the intent to do the right thing into
reality, it must be our own act and come from our own will. Viable brain
research should not be considered if we're not willing to act on it. For an
individual act to be morally good, the object, or what we are doing, must
be objectively good. Brain research should make someone act for
themselves, not because it sounds right to do.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/112976)
Timothy Smith (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/112976)
Sunday
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 53 of 58
Reply
Good evening,
Reviewing the Triune Ethics and the base of them, the Triune Brain
Theory, I do believe it is possible that splitting the brain along the
Corpus Callosum could cause a change in decision making. Separating
the brain causes rifts in communication between the brains. Therefore,
whatever processes the brain creates prior to the severing would also be
severed, forcing either a restructuring of decision-making or a failure in
decision-making.
When talking about whether a medical intervention should be able to
alter a person’s ethical decision making, I think that while it could be
possible to change a person’s decision-making process, most medical
interventions won’t. The intervention that Joe went through is absolutely
an extreme circumstance with the separation of his corpus callosum,
however it is seen that he leads a relatively normal life fifteen years after
his surgery.
I do not believe that brain research should have any effect whatsoever on
human moral actions, but rather that human morals should affect brain
research. When hands on research is being conducted, especially on a
living subject, the first questions should always be “Should I do this thing
because of X effect on the subject?”
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/133602)
Elisia Cobbin (She/Her) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/133602)
Monday
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 54 of 58
Gazzaniga's research on split brain studies and Narvaez's theory of
Triune Ethics raise interesting questions about the effect of such
experiments on a patient's triune ethical decision making. In the split
brain studies, the corpus callosum, which connects the two hemispheres
of the brain, is severed to treat severe epilepsy. This division results in
the hemispheres functioning somewhat independently, with the potential
for different cognitive processes and perceptions to occur in each
hemisphere.
As for the effect on triune ethical decision making, Narvaez emphasizes
the interplay between three ethical systems: the ethics of autonomy, the
ethics of community, and the ethics of divinity. Each system contributes
to an individual's moral decision making and behavior. If the split brain
experiment were to alter the communication between the hemispheres
too much, it might disrupt the balance and integration of these ethical
systems, possibly leading to challenges in decision making and moral
behavior. Although his one patient may be able to function somewhat
normal over the years they documented him, that doesn't speak for every
person in his situation having the same outcome. They haven't repeated
the surgery enough to know what can or could come of it.
I do believe a medical intervention can alter a person's ethical decision
making. It is a complicated decision, but it raises ethical concerns
related to personal autonomy and the preservation of an individual's core
identity and values. We don't know how that procedure can alter the brain.
Although that patient seems to be doing okay, he struggles because his
left and right brain doesn't work together. He needs guidance because of
that. When the brain is altered there are always risk and everyone is
different in results. A person makes decisions from what the brain knows
already. From working on the Neuro team I have seen how sensitive
trauma to the brain can effect and person and surgery is trauma.
When considering the influence of brain research on moral action in
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 55 of 58
Reply
humans, it's crucial to acknowledge that the brain plays a significant role
in shaping our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. Understanding how
the brain processes ethical dilemmas and how different brain regions
contribute to moral decision making can provide valuable insights into
human behavior. However, in my opinion I would not reduce moral action
solely to brain activity. Moral action is influenced by a variety of factors,
including cultural, social, and personal values. Brain research can inform
our understanding of moral processes, but it should be combined with
other perspectives and considerations to develop a comprehensive
understanding of moral action.
In summary, the split brain experiment may potentially affect a patient's
triune ethical decision making by disrupting the integration between the
hemispheres. Whether medical interventions should be able to alter
ethical decision making raises ethical considerations. Brain research can
contribute valuable insights to our understanding of moral action, but it
should be joined with other perspectives to develop a comprehensive
understanding of ethics and moral behavior.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/58603)
Gianna Jackmore (She/Her) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/58603)
Monday
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 56 of 58
Reply
Hi, i really enjoyed reading your post! i agree there hasnt been
enough research on the corpus callosum severing to really
understand the mental ramifications of it, but i do think its a good
option for people who cant do anything to manage their seizures.
hopefully more research is done in the future to give a solid picture
of the decision making skills of people who have undergone the
procedure.
(https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/58603)
Gianna Jackmore (She/Her) (https://canvas.fscj.edu/courses/72848/users/58603)
Monday
hello all, Narvaez explains that the structures and functions of the brain
are moldable given there is not severe damage. Upon damage the brains
functions can begin to change and this can alter ones thought processes
and actions. whereas previous to the damage a person might find
something like murder wrong, post damage they might not find anything
wrong with killing and even go through with the action. Many serial killers
were documented to suffer frontal lobe damage in their youth. However
we are not focusing on serial killers in this discussion, we will be
discussing Gazzaniga's patient Joe who had his corpus callosum severed
to rid him of frequent seizures.
Joe suffered multiple seizures a week and had his brain split to help him
manage his disorder so he could lead a fulfilling life without being
constantly bombarded by seizing fits. For years following his surgery Joe
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 57 of 58
Reply
constantly bombarded by seizing fits. For years following his surgery Joe
was studied and it was documented he was able to manage his seizures.
Because his left brain (speech, complex and logical thinking center) and
right brain ( fine motor, visual and creativity center) were severed they
were able to work independently of each other. We see an example of
this when he is presented stimuli on different sides and the right brain
responds differently and independent from the left and vice versa.
Ethically I believe that because the lobes were separated to give Joe a
higher quality of life there is no medical morality issue, however its hard
to say if Joe internally struggles with making decisions with the same
ethical stance as before the surgery. Surgeries like this serve to help the
patient have a higher quality of life and the patient is able to fully be
informed of the risks and give full consent. Compared to Lobotomies
when a patients partner of parent could bring them to a mental health
professional and have their brains damaged to make the patient more
"manageable" to their family but a shell of a person, often rendered in a
near mental vegetative state. Almost like a form of locked in syndrome
but your body works, lobotomies are ethically wrong and take autonomy
away to control people who are deemed "difficult" by their families. Brain
splitting to treat seizures are morally okay and should be offered to
people who really could benefit from it.
6/24/23, 2:26 AM Page 58 of 58
