Last month's column focused on recent research related to the neurobiological underpinnings of belief and faith (our ability to make assumptions and act confidently when we can't accurately predict the outcome of a looming challenge). Much of this research has focused on the brain systems that process spiritual and religious beliefs (our presumed personal relationship to such ethereal concepts as god and the cosmos).

We live out our life with terrestrial organisms however, and so our search for an appropriate personal relationship with them is important, and at the core of the concepts of morality and ethics.

Morality as a concept is concerned with the general definitional principles of right/wrong, good/bad, fair/unfair, and so on; and ethics with the development of specific behavioral codes that folks should follow. For example, since it's immoral to kill someone, the medical profession has developed ethical guidelines that reduce the possibility of death from medical mistakes and malpractice (Sylwester, 2007).

The scientific study of spiritual and religious behavior via neuroimaging technology that was discussed in last month's column is also occurring in the study of the brain systems and processes that make moral and ethical decisions (Greene, 2005). A more basic issue however is that of how morality and ethical behavior emerged.

One traditional view is that moral behavior is a distinctly human property that we don't share with animals because they lack both the cognitive capability to make abstract moral judgments, and the language needed to forge ethical systems. This position argues that self—interest and survival are our primary concerns, and a moral concern for others is simply a thin veneer that humans developed to cover a self—centered amoral (if not immoral) base. Scratch an altruist and observe a hypocrite bleed. The theological concept of original sin refers to this presumed need for humans to rise above their basic selfish nature, and to consciously choose to behave morally and ethically.