Abstract
In this article, we present a pragmatic approach to neuroethics, referring back to John Dewey and his articulation of the "common good" and its discovery through systematic methods. Pragmatic neuroethics bridges philosophy and social sciences and, at a very basic level, considers that ethics is not dissociable from lived experiences and everyday moral choices. We reflect on the integration between empirical methods and normative questions, using as our platform recent bioethical and neuropsychological research into moral cognition, action, and experience. Finally, we present the protocol of a study concerning teenagers' morality in everyday life, discussing our epistemological choices as an example of a pragmatic approach in empirical ethics. We hope that this article conveys that even though the scope of neuroethics is broad, it is important not to move too far from the real life encounters that give rise to moral questions in the first place.
Highlights
In this article, we present a pragmatic approach to neuroethics, referring back to John Dewey and his articulation of the “common good” and its discovery through systematic methods
We approach neuroethics from this pragmatic ethical perspective, dividing the discussion according to the two familiar divisions of neuroethics: the “neuroscience of ethics” and the “ethics of neuroscience.”[8]. The former refers to the study of psychobiological mechanisms for morally relevant phenomena, including moral judgments, social emotions, selfishness, and prosocial behavior,[9,10] and the latter concerns the study of ethical implications of progress in neuroscience and neighboring disciplines.[11,12]. We examine both domains of neuroethics from a pragmatic ethical perspective, briefly outlining the experimental data on moral cognition and action, and the use of empirical ethics to investigate moral behavior and experiences related to neuroscience intervention and innovation
To illustrate some of the aspects discussed in this article, we present a case study of empirical ethics research conducted as part of a Wellcome Trust-funded project entitled: “Becoming Good: Early Intervention and Moral Development in Child Psychiatry”
Summary
The pragmatic approach has been variously interpreted, but it is perhaps at its core a “protest” against principlism and “foundationalism,” or the idea that knowledge can be grounded in a priori methods of inquiry (such as an appeal to abstract duties and obligations). A recent study found that different areas of the brain were recruited by Chinese and American participants during the experience of moral emotions (e.g., admiration for someone’s virtue).[40] Another study found that a specific polymorphism of the oxytocin receptor gene, which has been consistently implicated in socio-emotional sensitivity, only predicted support-seeking behavior in American contexts but not Asian contexts.[41] These findings prompt us to reevaluate preconceptions of morality, and to accept that perhaps scientific studies of moral judgment and emotion can only provide us with variable conclusions. From schools to justice systems, from parenting to medical care, normative claims should be made with reference to what the context affords, and to culturally specific conceptions of the good and the good society
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
