Abstract

Recent developments in the neuroscience offer an increasing amount of “brain-based” explanations of decision-making in ethics . Are those explanations more basic than the psychological, “social” or philosophical ones? In my paper I address this question analyzing the meaning of “because” in sentences like “when someone is willing to act on a moral belief, it is because the emotional part of his or her brain has become active when considering the moral question at hand” . My answer is a pluralistic one. I reject brain-fundamentalism and I argue that neuroscientific developments support a moderate form of naturalism, according to which empirical results may indirectly influence moral reflection, but offer no direct evidence to radical reductive naturalism