Compassion, Ethics, and Neuroscience: Neuroethics Through Buddhist Eyes

Abstract

As scientists advance knowledge of the brain and develop technologies to measure, evaluate, and manipulate brain function, numerous questions arise for religious adherents. If neuroscientists can conclusively establish that there is a functional network between neural impulses and an individual's capacity for moral evaluation of situations, this will naturally lead to questions about the relationship between such a network and constructions of moral value and ethical human behavior. For example, if cognitive neuroscience can show that there is a neurophysiological basis for the moral appraisal of situations, it may be argued that the world's religions, which have traditionally been the keepers and purveyors of ethical values, are rendered either spurious or irrelevant. The questions point up broader dilemmas in the interface between science and religion, and raise concerns about the ethics of neurological research and experimentation. Since human beings will still arbitrate what is "moral" or "ethical," how can religious perspectives enrich the dialogue on neuroethical issues and how can neuroscience enrich dialogue on religion? Buddhist views on the nature of consciousness and methods of practice, especially meditation practice, may contribute to discussions on neuroscience and theories about the interrelationship between consciousness and ethical awareness by exploring the role that karma, intentionality, and compassion play in Buddhist understandings of the interrelationship between consciousness and ethics.

Neuroethics: A Moral Approach towards Neuroscience Research

“…It points to the ethico-legal and socio-moral impact of neuroscience, together with the ways in which neurotechnology which can be used to visualize or alter brain function along with human behavior (7). As scientists head towards the more advanced knowledge of brain and also develop progressive and expanded latest technologies to measure, evaluate, and manipulate brain function, numerous questions arise from moral point of view as well as from religious principles regarding these practices (8). If neuroscientists can conclusively establish a functional network between neural impulses and an individual's capacity for moral evaluation, this will surly lead to queries about the relationship between these networks and moral values and ethically based human actions (8).…”

Editors’ Overview: Neuroethics: Many Voices and Many Stories

“…Respecting these two difficulties as caveats, the goal was to hear from different religious voices without attempting or pretending to be comprehensive. With that in mind, the possibility that physical measurements might reveal consciousness, thoughts, intentions, or the roots of morality serves as a lens to view selected Catholic (McGoldrick 2012), Islamic (Al-Delaimy 2012), and Buddhist (Tsomo 2012) perspectives. In each case, commentaries from others speaking from the same religious traditions further enrich those perspectives (Cho 2012; Miller 2012; Moosa 2012).…”

“…Should neurotechnologies be used to look into or infer the thoughts of individuals (e.g., Al-Delaimy 2012; Cho 2012; McGoldrick 2012; Miller 2012; Moosa 2012; Tsomo 2012)? What will be the implications for education and society as a whole if scientific aspirations become technological realities (e.g., Bird 2012; Henry and Plemmons 2012; Lampe 2012; Langlais 2012; Nigam 2012; Schreiber 2012)?…”

“…This tension is addressed by nearly all contributions here, but esp. Scott (2012), Greely (2012), Greenspan (2012), Pirruccello (2012), Frost and Lumia (2012), Terence McGoldrick (2012), James Miller (2012), Karma Lekshe Tsomo (2012), and Francisca Cho (2012).…”

“…An argument here is that thinking about neuroethics will be best informed by incorporating many voices telling many stories, including those of neuroscientists, social scientists, philosophers, humanists, theologians, and others. Not only is this view shared by many contributors to this issue (esp., Al-Delaimy 2012; Cho 2012; Frost and Lumia 2012; Greely 2012; Henry and Plemmons 2012; Langlais 2012; Moosa 2012; Nigam 2012; Pirruccello 2012; Tsomo 2012), but many of those diverse voices are included in the collection.…”