Joshua Greene has argued that several lines of empirical research, including his own fMRI studies of brain activity during moral decision-making, comprise strong evidence against the legitimacy of deontology as a moral theory. This is because, Greene maintains, the empirical studies establish that “characteristically deontological” moral thinking is driven by prepotent emotional reactions which are not a sound basis for morality in the contemporary world, while “characteristically consequentialist” thinking is a more reliable moral guide because it is characterized by greater (...) cognitive command and control. In this essay, I argue that Greene does not succeed in drawing a strong statistical or causal connection between prepotent emotional reactions and deontological theory, and so does not undermine the legitimacy of deontological moral theories. The results that Greene relies on from neuroscience and social psychology do not establish his conclusion that consequentialism is superior to deontology. (shrink)

ics. Each of these can be pursued independently to a large extent, but perhaps most intriguing is to contem- plate how progress in each will affect the other. The past several months have seen heightened interest <blockquote> _<b>The Ethics of Neuroscience</b>_ </blockquote> in the intersection of ethics and neuroscience. In the The ethics of neuroscience can be roughly subdivided popular press, the topic grabbed headlines in a May.

En el siglo XXI nace la neurociencia de la ética con la pretensión de ser un nuevo saber , capaz de descubrir las bases cerebrales de la conducta moral. Desde ellas algunos neurocientíficos se proponen fundamentar una ética universal. El artículo 1) analiza críticamente ese proceso de fundamentación, 2) recurre para profundizar en él a la paradoja de la cooperación humana, y 3) hace un balance de las aportaciones de la neurociencia a la ética y de sus posibilidades de fundamentar (...) una ética universal. (shrink)