4.3 Article

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

期刊

BIOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 169-194

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023380907603

关键词

affect; amygdala; ethics; evolution; hippocampus; moral cognition; moral psychology; naturalization; neuroscience; neurobiology; prefrontal cortex; theory of mind

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.3
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