The Science of Morality and its Normative Implications

Neuromoral theorists are those who claim that a scientific understanding of moral judgment through the methods of psychology, neuroscience and related disciplines can have normative implications and can be used to improve the human ability to make moral judgments. We consider three neuromoral theori...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Neuroethics 2014-08, Vol.7 (2), p.159-172
Main Authors: Bruni, Tommaso, Mameli, Matteo, Rini, Regina A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Education
Ethics
Neurology
Neuropsychology
Neuroradiology
Neurosciences
Neurosurgery
Original Paper
Philosophy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Neuromoral theorists are those who claim that a scientific understanding of moral judgment through the methods of psychology, neuroscience and related disciplines can have normative implications and can be used to improve the human ability to make moral judgments. We consider three neuromoral theories: one suggested by Gazzaniga, one put forward by Gigerenzer, and one developed by Greene. By contrasting these theories we reveal some of the fundamental issues that neuromoral theories in general have to address. One important issue concerns whether the normative claims that neuromoral theorists would like to make are to be understood in moral terms or in non-moral terms. We argue that, on either a moral or a non-moral interpretation of these claims, neuromoral theories face serious problems. Therefore, neither the moral nor the non-moral reading of the normative claims makes them philosophically viable.
ISSN:1874-5490
1874-5504
DOI:10.1007/s12152-013-9191-y