The neural mechanisms of moral cognition: A multiple-aspect approach to moral judgment and decision-making

102Citations
Citations of this article
275Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

We critically review the mushrooming literature addressing the neural mechanisms of moral cognition (NMMC), reaching the following broad conclusions: (1) research mainly focuses on three inter-related categories: the moral emotions, moral social cognition, and abstract moral reasoning. (2) Research varies in terms of whether it deploys ecologically valid or experimentally simplified conceptions of moral cognition. The more ecologically valid the experimental regime, the broader the brain areas involved. (3) Much of the research depends on simplifying assumptions about the domain of moral reasoning that are motivated by the need to make experimental progress. This is a valuable beginning, but as more is understood about the neural mechanisms of decision-making, more realistic conceptions will need to replace the simplified conceptions. (4) The neural correlates of real-life moral cognition are unlikely to consist in anything remotely like a "moral module" or a "morality center." Moral representations, deliberations and decisions are probably highly distributed and not confined to any particular brain sub-system. Discovering the basic neural principles governing planning, judgment and decision-making will require vastly more basic research in neuroscience, but correlating activity in certain brain regions with well-defined psychological conditions helps guide neural level research. Progress on social phenomena will also require theoretical innovation in understanding the brain's distinctly biological form of computation that is anchored by emotions, needs, drives, and the instinct for survival.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Casebeer, W. D., & Churchland, P. S. (2003). The neural mechanisms of moral cognition: A multiple-aspect approach to moral judgment and decision-making. Biology and Philosophy, 18(1), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023380907603

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free