David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Neuroethics 4 (2):163-174 (2011)
It is by now a well-supported hypothesis in cognitive neuroscience that there exists a functional network for the moral appraisal of situations. However, there is a surprising disagreement amongst researchers about the significance of this network for moral actions, decisions, and behavior. Some researchers suggest that we should uncover those ethics [that are built into our brains ], identify them, and live more fully by them, while others claim that we should often do the opposite, viewing the cognitive neuroscience of morality more like a science of pathology. To analyze and evaluate the disagreement, this paper will investigate some of its possible sources. These may include theoretical confusions about levels of explanation in cognitive science, or different senses of ‘morality’ that researchers are looking to explain. Other causes of the debate may come from empirical assumptions about how possible or preferable it is to separate intuitive moral appraisal from moral decisions. Although we will tentatively favor the ‘Set Aside’ approach, the questions outlined here are open areas of ongoing research, and this paper will be confined to outlining the position space of the debate rather than definitively resolving it
|Keywords||Moral psychology Reasoning Decision-making Folk theory|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James A. Van Slyke (ed.) (2012). Theology and the Science of Moral Action: Virtue Ethics, Exemplarity, and Cognitive Neuroscience. Routledge.
Richard Dean (2010). Does Neuroscience Undermine Deontological Theory? Neuroethics 3 (1):43-60.
Edmund T. Rolls (2007). Memory, Attention, and Decision-Making: A Unifying Computational Neuroscience Approach. OUP Oxford.
Trevor Kvaran & Alan G. Sanfey (2010). Toward an Integrated Neuroscience of Morality: The Contribution of Neuroeconomics to Moral Cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (3):579-595.
Sandra L. Christensen (2008). The Role of Law in Models of Ethical Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 77 (4):451 - 461.
Neal M. Ashkanasy, Carolyn A. Windsor & Linda K. Treviño (2006). Bad Apples in Bad Barrels Revisited: Cognitive Moral Development, Just World Beliefs, Rewards, and Ethical Decision-Making. Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (4):449-474.
Jesse J. Prinz (2006). The Emotional Basis of Moral Judgments. Philosophical Explorations 9 (1):29-43.
Jeffrey S. Poland & Barbara Von Eckardt (2004). Mechanism and Explanation in Cognitive Neuroscience. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):972-984.
Michael J. Pardales (2002). "So, How Did You Arrive at That Decision?" Connecting Moral Imagination and Moral Judgement. Journal of Moral Education 31 (4):423-437.
Patricia Churchland (2003). The Neural Mechanisms of Moral Cognition: A Multiple-Aspect Approach to Moral Judgment and Decision-Making. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 18 (1):169-194.
Wendell Wallach (2010). Robot Minds and Human Ethics: The Need for a Comprehensive Model of Moral Decision Making. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 12 (3):243-250.
Linda K. Treviño (2006). Bad Apples In Bad Barrels Revisited. Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (4):449-473.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads29 ( #49,753 of 1,006,202 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,735 of 1,006,202 )
How can I increase my downloads?