4.2 Article

Neural basis of moral verdict and moral deliberation

期刊

SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 398-413

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2011.559363

关键词

Morality; Judgment; Anterior insula; Ventromedial prefrontal cortex

资金

  1. [1R01DA026505-01A1]
  2. [1R01MH085010-01A1]
  3. [1R01MH071896-01]
  4. [1R01MH070539-01]
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING [R01EB000840] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH070539, R01MH085010, R01MH071896] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA026505] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How people judge something to be morally right or wrong is a fundamental question of both the sciences and the humanities. Here we aim to identify the neural processes that underlie the specific conclusion that something is morally wrong. To do this, we introduce a novel distinction between moral deliberation, or the weighing of moral considerations, and the formation of a moral verdict, or the commitment to one moral conclusion. We predict and identify hemodynamic activity in the bilateral anterior insula and basal ganglia that correlates with committing to the moral verdict this is morally wrong as opposed to this is morally not-wrong, a finding that is consistent with research from economic decision-making. Using comparisons of deliberation-locked vs. verdict-locked analyses, we also demonstrate that hemodynamic activity in high-level cortical regions previously implicated in morality-including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, and temporoparietal junction-correlates primarily with moral deliberation as opposed to moral verdicts. These findings provide new insights into what types of processes comprise the enterprise of moral judgment, and in doing so point to a framework for resolving why some clinical patients, including psychopaths, may have intact moral judgment but impaired moral behavior.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据