Search

Neuro-ethics is probably fastest growing part of applied ethics. The main thesis is that certain natural processes in brain and nerves produce certain moral, and immoral, behaviors. All these processes can be explained causally, and (if this is so) neuro-ethics might be the final result of neuroscience. There are some metaphysical and ethical pitfalls to be considered, however, like the (incorrect) conflation of causal explanation and rational justification in definingvalues, not only non-moral values but moral values as well. Certainly, the knowledge of how neurological processes function could help to enhance the quality of human life, not only in coping with defects but also in improving the so-called „normal life“. This implies that neuroethics is instrumental, dealing with values which are instrumental as well. However, neuroethics, it seems, aspires to go further than that: to explain how goals come into existence and what their articulation should look like. All of this should be causally explained, or at least explainable; and the main focus of the paper is an analysis of this aspiration. The analysis refers to some important distinctions like the distinction between causes and reasons, explanation and justification, or the one between means and ends. At the end of the paper there is a section about applications, where some of the benefits and risks are summarily indicated, with a conclusion that neuroethics surely might help in advancing the overall quality of human life, individual and social.

This paper is a sociological analysis of the development, possible range, and real effects of one of the latest disciplines to emerge - neuroethics as well as bioethics. The starting premise is that the humanities perspective to a medical and philosophical discipline contributes to the very research done by neuroethics itself. This premise is significant given that the study of the brain surpasses current epistemological frameworks, forcing the examination of whether we perhaps need a new “brain” epistemology. New research on the brain, consciousness, and artificial intelligence has presented the public at large with a myriad of benefits in medicine and illness prevention; however, at the same time, it has opened certain social and ethical questions. The projected possibilities in the development of brain medication and interventions have motivated certain scientists today to speak of neuroscience exclusively from the perspective of bioethics. In other words, the challenges to human survival are directly linked to artificially caused advancements in human consciousness, cognition, intelligence, and to an extent even morality, insofar as these characteristics and capacities depend on biochemical and molecular processes. Considering the potentially real societal consequences of such development of a single discipline, we thought it relevant to seek certain answers by analyzing dilemmas and particular medical cases, along with their effects, through the optics of social, humanities, and biomedical phenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]