Skip to main content Accessibility help

Two Problematic Foundations of Neuroethics and Pragmatist Reconstructions



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.



Hide All

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.



Hide All


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

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;35:2123), 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):328–37). 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

57. See note 56, Dewey 1929.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

72. See note 14, Racine 2010.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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. (From: Gouinlock, J. The Moral Writtings of John Dewey, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 1994, at 48.)

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).

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.

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.

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.

92. See note 14, Racine 2010.

93. See note 44, Illes, Racine 2005.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

101. Parens, E, Johnston, J. Against hyphenated ethics. Bioethics Forum 2006; available at (last accessed 9 May 2018).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

114. See note 18, Racine 2008.

115. See note 19, Fins 2008.

116. See note 14, Racine 2010.

117. See note 14, Racine 2010.

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.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Two Problematic Foundations of Neuroethics and Pragmatist Reconstructions



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.