The Scientific and the Moralistic--Two Ways of Viewing Human Behavior

I like to tell my patients that there are essentially two ways of looking at any human behavior--the scientific and the moralistic.  These are two very different ways of viewing human behavior.  And these can lead to very different ways of feeling towards others and trying to influence others. 

I will tell you in advance that I subscribe to both of these views, although at times it seems impossible for me to reconcile them.  They each have their strengths and their weaknesses.

I will also say in advance that I know I am greatly oversimplifying a difficult subject in this blog post.  I apologize in advance.  A person could spend a very long time contemplating these issues and  still be confused.  The following oversimplifications are meant to be thought provoking--not necessarily totally accurate.  It is a very complex subject.  Fortunately, in my everyday life, I don't have to confront the full extent of the complexities and contradictions.  But when I try to put something down on paper, then every sentence seems to raise questions.

Two Views of Human Nature

Here are the two basic ways of viewing human behavior:

View 1--What I would call the older, more traditional view.   People have free will because there is something in us that is more than the sum total of our molecules.  We are more than physical beings.  There is a soul (or whatever you want to call it) in us that can make decisions.  We can choose to do right, or we can choose to do wrong.  

This view has been linked to and related to the idea that there is something in us that is not physical, sometimes called a soul.  This has been disparagingly referred to by academics as the "ghost in the machine" view.  Descartes, a philosopher, subscribed to this view, and so it has been termed Cartesian dualism (the "dual" part meaning a physical body and a non-physical one).

This leads us to view # 2.

View 2--I would call this the modern, scientific view.  I do not mean by this that it is right or wrong, just more in line with current academic modes of thought.  This view would say that people act the way that they do because of how their brains are constructed.  Their brains are made of neurons and glial cells.  These are made of molecules.  Molecules obey the laws of physics.  Molecules have no free will.  It is therefore illogical to blame someone for doing what their brain makes them do.  If an ADHD child is hyperactive, there is no sense in blaming them.  They haven't chosen to be this way. 

Now this may seem like an academic question--is there or is there not free will?  But the fact is that many people use blame in their everyday speech with their other family members, or with their students, or with others.  And blame generally makes the most sense if someone could have done something else.  If there were psychological or physical reasons that someone did what they did, blame is kind of beside the point.

Why Do I Care?

Why is this an issue for me?  Why do I really care?  It is important in two kinds of counseling situations that I see over and over: the depressed person who blames themselves for being "lazy" and unmotivated; and the ADHD kid who is getting blamed for his/her behavior.  In both cases, the blame is both misguided and harmful to the treatment of the person.  The depressed person tends to blame themselves.  The ADHD kid gets it from others.

Let's say that a sixth grader keeps getting into trouble for being out of their seat in class and talking too much.  The traditional approach has usually been to scold and to blame, with the idea that Johnny can control his behavior if he will only choose to do so.  However, many times it eventually turns out that Johnny has ADHD.  His prefrontal lobe executive functioning is inadequate for the demands of the classroom.  He doesn't know this.  He can't explain why he does what he does--either to himself or to others.  The scolding and blaming does not make things better.  It only makes him more depressed and more alienated from school.

Or perhaps I am working with a depressed person who just can't motivate themselves to clean house.  And they blame themselves for being lazy.  This only serves to deepen their depression.  It doesn't get the house cleaned, because the deeper depression only makes it harder for them to do their work.

The Real World: Dealing with Science and Morality At the Same Time

How in the world can these two different types of models of reality be reconciled?  I will leave that for philosophers.  All I can say is that sometimes I use one concept, sometimes another, and sometimes both.  Let me give some examples.

1.  Example one.  Let's go back to the sixth grader with ADHD.  He can't stay in his seat.  He gets in trouble for talking too much in class.  Here I use the scientific paradigm.  There is no sense trying to shame him or blame him.  We simply need to do what we can to help him behave more adaptively (medication, better structure in the classroom, use of positive reinforcement, education of the parents, etc.)

2.  Example two.  Or consider a person who inherits depression or bipolar disorder, etc..  Maybe they stay in bed sleeping much of the time.  They can't get out of bed.  Again, I use the scientific paradigm.  They are not to be blamed.  Blame will only make things worse.  It will make them more depressed, which will lead them to stay in bed more.

3.  Example three.  A person is speeding down an interstate, creating a hazardous situation for others.  Here I might be thinking on two levels.  Why is this person being impulsive?  Is there an explanation in scientific terms for their impulsivity (bipolar disorder, frontal lobe brain damage)?  On the other hand, I would definitely see this as making a bad choice.  Drug use could fall into this same category.  Their brain is developing a craving for the drug.  That is at the molecular level.  At the same time, what choices led to them using the drug in the first place?

Complications--the Buck Still Stops Here

I hope that clarified why I am against using the moralistic approach all of the time.  Now, here is where it gets even more complicated.  There are definite reasons for using the free will/responsibility approach to seeing the world at times.

Let's go back to Johnny.  Let's say that we have determined that it is not his fault that he is not staying in his seat.  Let's say that a full evaluation has been conducted on his ADHD and that he is receiving medicine and counseling.  Let's also say that his parents are in parent counseling as well.  Systems are set up to help him to remember to get his homework done, turn it in, and so on.  Ultimately, the success or failure of the systems set in place will depend on him.  He will need to cooperate to some degree for it to all work out.  This will become increasingly true as he goes into high school and then becomes an adult.  Even if someone is not to blame, the responsibility for change may still fall on their shoulders.

Or let's say that a person goes through cognitive behavioral counseling for depression and is prescribed medication.  Only the person themselves can decide whether they are going to do the homework assignments and use the coping mechanisms.  Only they can decide whether they are going to take their medication.

One other problem with the molecular view of people is that it may lead us to treat them as objects, rather than as people.  Perhaps we are more likely to think of people as numbers rather than real human beings.  I think it would be easier for a dictator to send people to concentration camps if they viewed people as only a collection of molecules.  It would be easier to mistreat people.  I believe that to think of people as real live agents with free will and feelings may make us more sympathetic and empathic.  I think that an over reliance on the molecular viewpoint would tend to make us less caring towards others.

What is the Takeaway Here?

Ultimately, I believe that if the concept of free will can be presented to people in the right way, in a way that can keep it separate from blame and shame.  It can be liberating.  It can emphasize that persons are not simply a product of their genes and environment, and that there may be a way out of their predicament.  In that way, it can also create even better self esteem.  When we make good choices, it enhances our feelings about being who we are.

On the other hand, if we misuse the concept of free will, ignoring the biological and scientific foundations of behavior, then  we may fall into the trap of blaming and shaming.  This in turn can unleash a variety of negative consequences--both for ourselves and for those around us.

Footnotes:

It is conceivable that someone could have a non-free will (deterministic) belief about human nature and still choose to use blame as a means of trying influence or coerce others.  However, I believe this is wrong headed in two ways.  First, it makes no logical sense to blame others for things over which they have no control.  Secondly, I believe that the negative, boomerang effects of blame make it a very poor choice for trying to influence others.  Blaming someone is different from disciplining them. Positive and negative consequences can still be used in thoughtful, caring ways for healthy discipline.

Some philosophers would maintain that even though we are just molecules, we are still more than the sum of our parts and that the concept of making true choices still makes sense, even if we are ultimately just molecules. Thus, the idea that we are more than just the sum of our molecules has been judged by some philosophers to be consistent with modern physics. I don't agree. I believe that modern physics does not leave room for us to be more than the sum of our molecules. I think that a larger view of the nature of reality is needed to be consistent with the idea of free will and choice.