Two Problematic Foundations of Neuroethics and Pragmatist Reconstructions

Area of Science:

• Neuroethics
• Philosophy of Science
• Neuroscience

Background:

• Current neuroethics frameworks rest on two claims: neuroscience transforming ethics and unique challenges requiring specialization.
• Critiques highlight potential reductionism and debatable assumptions in these established views.

Purpose of the Study:

• To challenge prevailing conceptions of neuroethics.
• To propose a pragmatist reconstruction of neuroethics based on philosophical pragmatism and practical experience.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis informed by pragmatism.
• Review of existing claims and critiques within neuroethics.
• Reconceptualization of neuroethics' scope and rationale.

Main Results:

• The two foundational claims of neuroethics are deemed ill-founded.
• Neuroscience offers valuable insights into moral situations but does not necessitate a complete overhaul of ethical theories (neuroscientism).
• Specialization in neuroethics is not justified by unique challenges but by its role in addressing practical issues in neurology and psychiatry.

Conclusions:

• Neuroethics should adopt a pragmatist approach, integrating empirical data without succumbing to reductionism.
• The field's value lies in its scholarly and practical application to resolve real-world problems associated with neurological and psychiatric conditions.