The Science of Morality and its Normative Implicat

Authors: Tommaso Bruni Matteo Mameli Regina A Rini

Publish Date: 2013/08/25

Volume: 7, Issue: 2, Pages: 159-172

PDF Link

Abstract

Neuromoral theorists are those who claim that a scientific understanding of moral judgment through the methods of psychology neuroscience and related disciplines can have normative implications and can be used to improve the human ability to make moral judgments We consider three neuromoral theories one suggested by Gazzaniga one put forward by Gigerenzer and one developed by Greene By contrasting these theories we reveal some of the fundamental issues that neuromoral theories in general have to address One important issue concerns whether the normative claims that neuromoral theorists would like to make are to be understood in moral terms or in nonmoral terms We argue that on either a moral or a nonmoral interpretation of these claims neuromoral theories face serious problems Therefore neither the moral nor the nonmoral reading of the normative claims makes them philosophically viableThe authors would like to thank Joshua Greene for sharing unpublished materials and two anonymous referees for their helpful comments Research was supported by the European Institute of Oncology TB the Umberto Veronesi Foundation TB and the VolkswagenStiftung RR

Keywords: