Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-5rzhg Total loading time: 0.517 Render date: 2021-11-30T21:09:20.669Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Two Problematic Foundations of Neuroethics and Pragmatist Reconstructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2018

Abstract:

Common understandings of neuroethics, that is, of its distinctive nature, are premised on two distinct sets of claims: (1) neuroscience can change views about the nature of ethics itself and neuroethics is dedicated to reaping such an understanding of ethics, and (2) neuroscience poses challenges distinct from other areas of medicine and science and neuroethics tackles those issues. Critiques have rightfully challenged both claims, stressing how the first may lead to problematic forms of reductionism whereas the second relies on debatable assumptions about the nature of bioethics specialization and development. Informed by philosophical pragmatism and our experience in neuroethics, we argue that these claims are ill founded and should give way to pragmatist reconstructions; namely, that neuroscience, much like other areas of empirical research on morality, can provide useful information about the nature of morally problematic situations, but does not need to promise radical and sweeping changes to ethics based on neuroscientism. Furthermore, the rationale for the development of neuroethics as a specialized field need not to be premised on the distinctive nature of the issues it tackles or of neurotechnologies. Rather, it can espouse an understanding of neuroethics as both a scholarly and a practical endeavor dedicated to resolving a series of problematic situations raised by neurological and psychiatric conditions.

Type
Symposium: Competing Identities of Neuroethics
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The writing of this article was supported by a career award from the Fonds de recherche du Québec–Santé (ER) and a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Fonds de recherche du Québec–Santé in collaboration with ERANET: NEURON (ER). We would like to thank Sonja Chu for helpful feedback on a previous version of this manuscript and for editorial assistance.

References

1. Gazzaniga, MS. The Ethical Brain. New York/Washington, D.C.: Dana Press; 2005Google Scholar

2. In this article, we have used the expression “neuroscience of morality” to refer to what many authors describe as a “neuroscience of ethics” (Roskies, A. Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron 2002;35:2123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed), including some of our previous writing. The reason is that the term “ethics” more appropriately designates an academic field or discipline, and the “neuroscience of ethics” is sometimes misinterpreted as taking this discipline as its object (Racine, E, Dubljevic, V, Jox, RJ, Baertschi, B, Christensen, JF, Farisco, M, et al. Can neuroscience contribute to practical ethics? A critical review and discussion of the methodological and translational challenges of ethics. Bioethics 2017;31(5):328–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar). However, it is more accurate to understand the neuroscience of ethics as referring to a “neuroscience of morality,” because the neuroscience of ethics does not investigate ethics per se but rather the domain of morality such as moral judgments, moral emotions, moral intuitions, and moral behavior. This distinction also helps to state that, from a pragmatist standpoint, the empirical or scientific understanding of morality (with the help of neuroscience, psychology, anthropology, or sociology) is crucial for the task of ethics, but it does not replace the projective and deliberative nature of ethics as an empirically informed effort to resolve morally problematic situations and seek resolution in action.

3. Greene, JD. Social neuroscience and the soul’s last stand. In: Todorov, A, Fiske, S, Prentics, D, eds. Social Neuroscience: Toward Understanding the Underpinnings of the Social Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar

4. Changeux, J. Le point de vue d’un neurobiologiste sur les fondements de l’éthique. In: Huber, G, ed. Cerveau et psychisme humains: quelle éthique? Paris: John Libbey Eurotext; 1996:97109.Google Scholar

5. Changeux, J, Ricoeur, P. Ce qui nous fait penser: la nature et la règle. Paris: Odile Jacob; 2000.Google Scholar

6. Churchland, PS. The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul: A Philosophical Journey into the Brain. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press; 1995.Google Scholar

7. Churchland, PS. Feeling reasons. In: Churchland, PM, Churchland, PS, eds. On the Contrary. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998:231–54.Google Scholar

8. Decety, JWT, ed. The Moral Brain: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Wolpe, PR. Neuroethics. In: Post, SG, ed. The Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 3rd ed. New York: MacMillan Reference; 2004:1894–8.Google Scholar

10. See note 2, Roskies 2002.

11. Zizzo, N, Bell, E, Racine, E. What is everyday ethics? A review and a proposal for an integrative concept. Journal of Clinical Ethics 2016;27:117–28.Google Scholar

12. Zizzo, N, Bell, E, Racine, E. What are the focal points in bioethics literature? Examining the discussions about everyday ethics in Parkinson’s Disease. Clinical Ethics 2016;12(1):1923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Illes, J, Raffin, TA. Neuroethics: An emerging new discipline in the study of brain and cognition. Brain and Cognition 2002;50:341–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Racine, E. Pragmatic Neuroethics: Improving Treatment and Understanding of the Mind-Brain. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Racine, E. Interdisciplinary approaches for a pragmatic neuroethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 2008;8:52–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. Andre, J. Bioethics As Practice. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press; 2002.Google Scholar

17. Racine, E, Sample, M. The competing identities of neuroethics: Remarks on theoretical and methodological assumptions and their practical implications for the future of neuroethics. In: Rommelfanger, K, Johnson, S, eds. Handbook of Neuroethics. New York: Routledge; 2017:2333.Google Scholar

18. Racine, E. Comment on “Does it make sense to speak of neuroethics?” European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 2008;9:23.Google Scholar

19. Fins, JJ. A leg to stand on: Sir William Osler and Wilder Penfield’s “Neuroethics.” American Journal of Bioethics 2008;8:3746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. See note 14, Racine 2010.

21. See note 2, Roskies 2002.

22. Levy, N. Neuroethics: A new way of doing ethics. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2011;2:39.Google ScholarPubMed

23. See note 4, Changeux 1996.

24. Changeux J. L’homme neuronal. Paris: Hachette;1983.

25. See note 5, Changeux, Ricoeur 2000.

26. Churchland, PS. Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Book/MIT Press;1986.Google Scholar

27. See note 6, Churchland 1995; note 7, Churchland 1998.

28. Churchland, PS. Neuroconscience: Reflections on the neural basis of morality. In: Marcus, SJ, ed. Neuroethics: Mapping the Field, Conference Proceedings. San Francisco: The Dana Foundation; 2002:20–6.Google Scholar

29. Churchland, PS. Braintrust. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2012.Google Scholar

30. Churchland, PM. Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 1981;77:6790.Google Scholar

31. Brothers, L. A biological perspective on empathy. American Journal of Psychiatry 1989;146(9):10–9.Google ScholarPubMed

32. Blair, RJR, Colledge, E, Mitchell, DGV. Somatic markers and response reversal: Is there orbitofrontal cortex dysfunction in boys with psychopathic tendencies. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 2001;29:499511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

33. Blair, RJR. A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition 1995;57:129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

34. Eslinger, PJ, Damasio, AR. Severe distrubance of higher cognition after bilateral frontal lobe ablation: patient EVR. Neurology 1985;35:1731–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. Eslinger, PJ. Neurological and neuropsychological bases of empathy. European Journal of Neurology 1998;39:193–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. Damasio, AR. Descartes’ Error. New York: Penguin Putnam Publishers; 1994.Google ScholarPubMed

37. Greene, JD, Sommerville, RB, Nystrom, LE, Darley, JM, Cohen, JD. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 2001;293:2105–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

38. Moll, J, Eslinger, PJ, Oliveira-Souza, R. Frontopolar and anterior temporal cortex activation in a moral judgment task: Preliminary functional MRI results in normal subjects. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria 2001;59:657–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Haidt, J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 2001;108:814–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

40. Cushman, F, Young, L, Greene, JD. Multi-sytem moral psychology. In: Doris, J, ed. The Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010:4771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. See note 1, Gazzaniga 2005, at xv.

42. Piperberg, M, Vidal, F. Born free: The theory and practice of neuroethical exceptionalism. In: Racine, E, Aspler, J, eds. Debates about Neuroethics: Perspectives on Its Development, Focus, and Future. New York: Springer; 2017:6781.Google Scholar

43. See note 2, Racine et al. 2017.

44. Illes, J, Racine, E. Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. American Journal of Bioethics 2005;5:518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

45. Berker, S. The normative insignificance of neuroscience. Philosophy & Public Affairs 2009;37(4):293329CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Rest, JR. A psychologist looks at the teaching of ethics. Hastings Center Report 1982;12:2936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. Rest, JR. Moral Development. Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Praeger; 1986.Google Scholar

48. Turiel, E. The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983.Google Scholar

49. See note 46, Rest 1982.

50. Racine, E. Identifying challenges and conditions for the use of neuroscience in bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics - Neuroscience 2007;7:74–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

51. Racine, E, Bar-Ilan, O, Illes, J. fMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2005;6:159–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

52. Morse, S. Brain overclaim syndrome and criminal responsibility: A diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 2006;3:397412.Google Scholar

53. Racine, E, Zimmerman, E. Pragmatic neuroethics and neuroscience’s potential to radically change ethics. In: Littlefield, M, Johnson, MJ, eds. The Neuroscientific Turn: Transdisciplinarity in the Age of the Brain. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press; 2012:135–51.Google Scholar

54. McCabe, DP, Castel, AD. Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 2008;107:343–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

55. Weisberg, DS, Keil, FC, Goodstein, J, Rawson, E, Gray, JR. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008;20:470–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

56. Dewey, J. The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action. New York: Milton, Balch & Company; 1929.Google Scholar

57. See note 56, Dewey 1929.

58. Dewey, J. Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. New York: Holt; 1922.Google Scholar

59. Sherwin, S. Foundations, frameworks, lenses: The role of theories in bioethics. Bioethics 1999;13:198205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

60. See note 53, Racine, Zimmerman 2012.

61. Racine, E, Waldman, S, Rosenberg, J, Illes, J. Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science and Medicine 2010;71:725–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

62. Vidal, F. Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity. History of the Human Sciences 2009;22:536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

63. Racine, E, Illes, J. Neuroethical responsibilities. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 2006;33:269–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

64. Hagner, M. Cultivating the cortex in German neuroanatomy. Science in Context 2001;14:541–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

65. Bedeutung, Vogt O., der Hirnforschung, Ziele und Wege. Nord and Süd. Nord and Süd 1909;36:309 (see note 62, Hagner 2001).Google Scholar

66. See note 64, Hagner 2001.

67. Jasanoff, S, ed. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. Chicago: Routledge; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. See note 63, Racine, Illes 2006. See also Cascio, MA, Racine, E. Person-oriented research ethics: Integrating relational and everyday ethics in research. Accountability in Research 2018;25(3):170–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

69. See note 14, Racine 2010.

70. Gordon, AH. Special articles: The patient as a person. The Canadian Medical Association Journal 1934;31(2):191–3.Google Scholar

71. Durand, G. Introduction générale à la bioéthique: histoire, concepts et outils. Montréal: Fides-Cerf; 1999.Google Scholar

72. See note 14, Racine 2010.

73. Stent, GS. The poverty of neurophilosophy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1990;15:539–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

74. Macintyre, A. What can moral philosophers learn from the study of the brain? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1998;58:865–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75. See note 5, Changeux, Ricoeur 2000.

76. Racine, E. Pourquoi et comment doit-on tenir compte des neurosciences en éthique? Esquisse d’une approche neurophilosophique émergentiste et interdisciplinaire. Laval théologique et philosophique 2005;61:77105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77. See note 14, Racine 2010.

78. van der Scheer, L,Widdershoven, G. Integrated empirical ethics: Loss of normativity? Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 2004;7:71–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

79. Borry, P, Schotsmans, P, Dierickx, K. The birth of the empirical turn in bioethics. Bioethics 2005;19: 4971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

80. See note 58, Dewey 1922.

81. See note 50, Racine 2007.

82. Potter, VR. Bioethics the science of survival. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1970;14:127–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83. Dewey, J. An address delivered before the College of Physicians in St. Louis, April 21, 1937. In: Ratner, J, ed. Intelligence in the Modern World: John Dewey’s Philosophy. New York: The Modern Library; 1939.Google Scholar (From: Gouinlock, J. The Moral Writtings of John Dewey, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 1994, at 48.)Google Scholar

84. See note 13, Illes, Raffin 2002.

85. Shook, J, Giordano, J. Neuroethical engagement on interdisciplinary and international scales. In: Aspler, Racine 2017 (see note 42).Google Scholar

86. See note 9, Wolpe 2004.

87. See note 2, Roskies 2002.

88. Farah, MJ. Neuroethics: A guide for the perplexed. Cerebrum 2004;6:2938.Google ScholarPubMed

89. See note 88, Farah 2004.

90. Sententia, W. Neuroethical considerations: Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2004;1013:221–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

91. Parens, E, Johnston, J. Does it make sense to speak of neuroethics? Three problems with keying ethics to hot new science and technology. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 2007;8(Spec No.):S61–4.Google ScholarPubMed

92. See note 14, Racine 2010.

93. See note 44, Illes, Racine 2005.

94. Turner, L. Bioethic$ Inc. Nature Biotechnology 2004;22:947–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

95. Turner, L. The tyranny of ’genethics’. Nature Biotechnology 2003;21:1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

96. Turner, L. Bioethics needs to rethink its agenda. British Medical Journal 2004;328:175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

97. Evans, JH. A sociological account of the growth of principlism. Hastings Center Report 2000;30:37.Google ScholarPubMed

98. Evans, JH. Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 2002.Google Scholar

99. De Vries, R. Framing neuroethics: A sociological assessment of the neuroethical imagination. American Journal of Bioethics 2005;5:25–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

100. De Vries, R. Who will guard the guardians of neuroscience? Firing the neuroethical imagination. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 2007;8(Spec No.):S65–9.Google ScholarPubMed

101. Parens, E, Johnston, J. Against hyphenated ethics. Bioethics Forum 2006; available at https://www.thehastingscenter.org/against-hyphenated-ethics/ (last accessed 9 May 2018).Google Scholar

102. Pickersgill, M. The social life of the brain: Neuroscience in society. Current Sociology 2013;61(3):322–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

103. See note 97, Evans 2000; note 98, Evans 2002.

104. Gieryn, TF. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 1983;781–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

105. See note 16, Andre 2002.

106. See note 14, Racine 2010.

107. Brohan, E, Henderson, C, Wheat, K, Malcolm, E, Clement, S, Barley, EA, et al. Systematic review of beliefs, behaviours and influencing factors associated with disclosure of a mental health problem in the workplace. BioMed Central Psychiatry 2012;12:11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

108. Bell, E, Andrew, G, Di Pietro, N, Chudley, AE, Reynolds, JN, Racine, E. It’s a shame! Stigma against fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: Examining the ethical implications for public health practices and policies. Public Health Ethics 2016;9:6577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

109. Racine, E, Bell, E, Zizzo, N, Green, C. Public discourse on the biology of alcohol addiction: Implications for stigma, self-control, essentialism, and coercive policies in pregnancy. Neuroethics 2015;110.Google Scholar

110. World Health Organization. Neurological Disorders: Public Health Challenges. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.Google Scholar

111. Racine, E, Lariviere-Bastien, D, Bell, E, Majnemer, A, Shevell, M. Respect for autonomy in the healthcare context: Observations from a qualitative study of young adults with cerebral palsy. Child: Care, Health and Development 2013;39:873–9.Google ScholarPubMed

112. Larivière-Bastien, D, Majnemer, A, Shevell, M, Racine, E. Perspectives of adolescents and young adolescents with cerebral palsy on the ethical and social challenges encountered in healthcare services. Narrative Inquiry on Bioethics: A Journal of Qualitative Research 2011;1:4354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

113. Pontius, AA. Neuro-ethics of “walking” in the newborn. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1973;37:235–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

114. See note 18, Racine 2008.

115. See note 19, Fins 2008.

116. See note 14, Racine 2010.

117. See note 14, Racine 2010.

8
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Two Problematic Foundations of Neuroethics and Pragmatist Reconstructions
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Two Problematic Foundations of Neuroethics and Pragmatist Reconstructions
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Two Problematic Foundations of Neuroethics and Pragmatist Reconstructions
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *