Can Neuroscience Contribute to Practical Ethics? A Critical Review and Discussion of the Methodological and Translational Challenges of the Neuroscience of Ethics

Abstract

Neuroethics is an interdisciplinary field that arose in response to novel ethical challenges posed by advances in neuroscience. Historically, neuroethics has provided an opportunity to synergize different disciplines, notably proposing a two-way dialogue between an 'ethics of neuroscience' and a 'neuroscience of ethics'. However, questions surface as to whether a 'neuroscience of ethics' is a useful and unified branch of research and whether it can actually inform or lead to theoretical insights and transferable practical knowledge to help resolve ethical questions. In this article, we examine why the neuroscience of ethics is a promising area of research and summarize what we have learned so far regarding its most promising goals and contributions. We then review some of the key methodological challenges which may have hindered the use of results generated thus far by the neuroscience of ethics. Strategies are suggested to address these challenges and improve the quality of research and increase neuroscience's usefulness for applied ethics and society at large. Finally, we reflect on potential outcomes of a neuroscience of ethics and discuss the different strategies that could be used to support knowledge transfer to help different stakeholders integrate knowledge from the neuroscience of ethics.

Superethics Instead of Superintelligence: Know Thyself, and Apply Science Accordingly

“…Interestingly enough, there is progress in the cognitive neuroscience of ethics, where evolutionary theory, ethology, psychology and various other disciplines combine with neuroscience in mapping and understanding the mechanisms underlying our ethical thought and behavior (Greene 2015;Racine et al 2017). Currently, there is fast growing research into pathological behavior, such as psychopathy, and antisocial personality disorder (McKinley et al 2018;Pujol et al 2019;Sonne and Gash 2018).…”

“…How many apps are there, however, that help us in daily life situations to act more humanely? Racine et al (2017; see also Selinger and Saeger 2012) briefly discuss this possibility, and mention one app that we could find in Apple's Appstore (Glanville 2017; see also the website of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics 2015). While we fully support the developers of this app, it seems fair to say that its functionality is quite limited.…”

Opportunities, risks and challenges in global mental health and population neuroscience: a case of Sino-German cooperation

“…Researchers in psychiatry have to evaluate carefully for each patient, who has been admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric hospital, whether he or she can give informed consent to participate in research whilst being involuntarily detained [ 46 ]. No patient should be coerced to participate in research, even if a surrogate (legal guardian) agrees on their behalf [ 35 ]. But even without overt coercions, patients who are unable to give informed consent should not be used as research subjects as a general rule.…”

El fin ético no naturalista de la neuroeducación

“…(Cortina, 2013: 805ss. ;Racine et al, 2017). 4 De forma paralela y a la luz de la bibliografía mentada -aunque con ciertos matices porque la relación es más compleja-, considero que conviene diferenciar, por una parte, las cuestiones de ética aplicada a la neuroeducación que se ocupan de analizar cuáles son las implicaciones éticas de los avances en la neurociencia educacional y, por otra parte, las cuestiones que plantean cuestiones fundamentales de la educación, teniendo en cuenta los avances en neuroética.…”

“…Creo que son especialmente atinadas las «guías» queRacine et al (2017) ofrecen para avanzar en la investigación acerca de la neurociencia de la ética en términos de mayor «transparencia y precisión normativa y conceptual».…”