Abstract
The neuroscience of ethics is allegedly having a double impact. First, it is transforming the view of human morality through the discovery of the neurobiological underpinnings that influence moral behavior. Second, some neuroscientific findings are radically challenging traditional views on normative ethics. Both claims have some truth but are also overstated. In this article, the author shows that they can be understood together, although with different caveats, under the label of "neurofoundationalism." Whereas the neuroscientific picture of human morality is undoubtedly valuable if we avoid neuroessentialistic portraits, the empirical disruption of normative ethics seems less plausible. The neuroscience of morality, however, is providing relevant evidence that any empirically informed ethical theory needs to critically consider. Although neuroethics is not going to bridge the is-ought divide, it may establish certain facts that require us to rethink the way we achieve our ethical aspirations.
Highlights
The origins of Western moral philosophy have an indelible birthmark—know thyself
Michael Gazzaniga, for instance, ventured to claim that neuroethics gives the opportunity to develop a “brain-based ethics.”[58]. Alasdair Macintyre pointed out that the study of the brain could jeopardize the perspective of ethics itself.[59,60]
Current knowledge about the cerebral basis of human moral psychology is probably a small part of what we will come to know in the coming decades
Summary
The origins of Western moral philosophy have an indelible birthmark—know thyself. Following that Delphic precept, Socrates established an intimate relationship between self-knowledge and the pursuit of goodness.[1]. Claim 2: Neuroscience is radically challenging traditional views in normative ethics.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
