Let me begin that I really liked Brandon’s and gnifyus’s comments (Nerd up).

So I read the short BBC article that you linked to and while I don’t necessarily disagree with the possible conclusions listed in the article, it seems so inconclusive.

64 volunteers asked to do the “test” two different ways… and then averaged the results.

First of all the standard is not controlled and second lends itself to bias and third the population sample is relatively small (I mean you could only find 64 people at a university to do this). For instance if I were one of the 64 I could try and bias my tolerance toward my particular moral standard. The other thing here, as Brandon and Gnifyus point out in there comments, is that there are so many variables in play that are hard to isolate and control.

Like I said, I really not disagree here but find the conclusions a bit presumptuous although the article does say that they really do not know how or why a link exists. I’d go further and say that they are not sure that there is a link.