There is no simple answer to the social dilemmas facing our society in the present day. One could spend days arguing reasons in support or opposition for issues such as the morality of abortion, the existence of free will, or the feasibility of universal ethics. In Michael S. Gazzaniga 's book, The Ethical Brain, these controversial topics are discussed using a brain-based philosophy of life, commonly known as Neuroethics. Although there are several advantages to solving such predicaments using a scientific approach, it is equally important to consider the personal and social implications of an ethical decision. For this reason, I partially agree with the statement that human beings should use Neuroethics to deal ethically with social issues …show more content…
This topic is crucial when considering the decision to penalize a criminal for a felony. Scientifically speaking, there is a difference between the brains of individuals, causing some people to be more aggressive than others. As Gazzaniga (2005) states in his book, "Whether through neurochemical imbalances or lesions, brain function can become distorted, perhaps explaining certain violent or criminal behavior" (p.89). If all people with such neurochemical imbalances displayed similar types of behavior, the conclusion would be obvious. However, not all people who have lesions or schizophrenia are violent. (Gazzaniga, 2005, p.95) An inconsistency in behavioral outcomes requires an alternate explanation of the concept of free will. Some philosophers criticize neuroscientists, arguing that, according to the article Neuroscience vs. Philosophy, "researchers have not quite grasped the concept that they say they are debunking" (Neuroscience vs. Philosophy: Taking an Aim at free will, 2011). In order to fully understand the concept of free will, it must be understood from synthesizing lessons from human experiences. Aristotle spoke of an internal moral compass that all humans possess; one that guides the concept of what is good (Eshleman, 2014, p.3). It becomes a necessity to compile the scientific perspective of a moral dilemma with the philosophical perspective in order to draw a reasonable …show more content…
This is a topic that is seemingly impossible reach a compromise on. Initially, it would make sense to understand the cognitive processes of a fetus at the various stages of development. There is reasonable evidence that the fetus does not have sustainable mental activity until 23 weeks after conception (Gazzaniga, 2005, p.8). The argument could be made, based on the neural activity of the fetus, that abortion is not morally ethical after the 23rd week following conception. Despite this scientific evidence, there is still a lack of agreement among persons debating this issue. For example, approximately 89 percent of abortions take place before the 12th week after conception (Hinman, 2014, p.11), yet many people view conception as the beginning of life and will therefore not support abortion, even if it happens before the fetus has sustainable mental activity. Understandably, the solution is once again not easily agreed upon. One must consider the social implications of abortion, or lack there of prior to deeming it acceptable or not. For example, women who are victims of rape and incest should have no obligation to carry out a pregnancy, regardless of point in time after conception. "An abortion can avoid disgrace to an unwed mother." (Mahamood, 2015, p.69) The answer to the morality of abortion lies deeper than understanding the
In the US, 89% of abortions are performed during the first trimester of a woman 's pregnancy. Approximately 115,000 abortions are done per day in the US and at least 25 and younger women have a 50% of having an abortion. This paper will reflect on the moral status of abortion, a fetus having value to life, alternative options instead of abortion and rape being an exception. The conservative point feels a fetus should be given full moral status. They should be given full moral status because in the early weeks of development they are developing major organs. A fetus should be given the right to continue to fully develop so that they have the opportunity to contribute to society. If an abortion occurs, it does not give a fetus the opportunity
In my opinion, the author defends a good but also complex perspective. '' The criminal activity itself should be taken as evidence of brain abnormality'', says Eagleman, however, what about the percentage of criminals that are not carriers of the genes that contribute to performing violent crimes? Are they going to be sent to rehabilitation too and exonerated from incarceration even when there is proof of no brain
In “Toward a Universal Ethics,” written by Michael Gazzaniga, a question is posed to coax his audience toward a science based ethics. “The question is, Do we have an innate moral sense as a species, and if so, can we recognize and accept it on it’s own terms? It is not a good idea to kill because it is not a good idea to kill, not because God or Allah or Buddha said it was not a good idea to kill.”(Gazzaniga, 420 para. 6). Gazzaniga answers the question for us, but he was wrong to assume that the brain’s systematic response to moral situations means that science should dictate ethics and morality. Instead, ethics and morality should be considered a part of humanity, which is influenced and balanced by many things including science, religion, and individual
Imagine…the birth of a human being into the world. 9 months of endless anticipation leading to someone’s first chance at seeing the world for the first time. While some enjoy the result of a pregnancy, leading to a new human being entering life, some are not so fond, or just can’t be in such a situation. Abortion is the supposed “cure” to this problem and is, for the most part, done safely. However, one of the factors stopping someone from committing an abortion is the consideration of moral status on the child.
Can a mass of networked neurons produce moral human agents? I shall argue that it can; a brain can be morally excellent. A connectionist account of how the brain works can explain how a person might be morally excellent in Aristotle's sense of the term. According to connectionism, the brain is a maze of interconnections trained to recognize and respond to patterns of stimulation. According to Aristotle, a morally excellent human is a practically wise person trained in good habits. What an Aristotelian theory of ethics and a connectionist theory of mind have in common is the assumption that the successful mind/brain has the disposition to behave appropriately in appropriate circumstances. According to Aristotle, the good person knows the right end, desires and chooses to pursue it, and recognizes the right means to it. Thus the good person's brain must be able to form certain moral concepts, develop appropriate behavioral dispositions, and learn practical reasoning skills. I shall argue that this collection of the brain's cognitive capacities is best accounted for by a connectionist theory of the mind/brain. The human condition is both material and moral; we are brain-controlled bodies with ethical values. My essay seeks to understand the relationship between our brains and our values, between how the brain works and how we make moral decisions.
Serial killers are defined to “be driven by instinct and desire to kill.” In a study done in 2000, Dr, Richard Davidson says, “people with a large amount of aggression – in particular people who have committed aggressive murders or have a social disorder – have almost no brain activity in the orbital frontal cortex or the anterior cingulated cortex while activity in the amyglade continued perfectly. The orbital frontal cortex and the anterior congulated cortex control emotional impulses while the amyglade controls reactions to fear.” Davidson concludes his research claiming that although environment can and will affect a serial killer’s thoughts, it is a killer’s genetic makeup that inevitably creates murderous thoughts.
According to Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." This is suggesting that once a child is conceived, it should be recognized as a human. Furthermore, he explains how at just eighteen days after conception, the fetus’ heart begins to beat and after just eight weeks after conception, all body systems become present on the fetus. I feel strongly that if everyone was aware of these numbers that the numbers alone could convince the public to think twice before aborting a child. In situations where it was the mother’s idea to have sex and she got pregnant, it is cruel to allow her to, in a sense, punish her child for actions that she could have prevented. Everyone knows exactly wha...
Raine, A. & Yang,Y. (2006). Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior. Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience.
Thou shalt not kill; one-tenth of what may arguably be the most famous guidelines of morality in the western culture, and also the main driving force for pro-life advocates. The argument supporting their beliefs typically starts with the premises that a fetus is a person, and to destroy or to kill a person is unethical. Therefore abortion, the premeditated destruction of a human being, is murder, and consequently unethical. I deny the fact that the fetus, what I will refer to as an embryo up to 22 weeks old, has the right to live. The opposing argument is invalid because a fetus, although perhaps a part of human species, is not formally a person. This leaves it simply to be a part of the woman?s body, whose fate lies solely in the hands of the pregnant woman alone, no different from a tumor she might have. By proving this, the abortion debate then becomes an issue of women?s rights, something that is most controversial indeed. Furthermore, it is fair to question the credibility of many people against abortion because of obvious contradictions in the logic of their belief systems. The fact that this debate is relevant in modern society is ludicrous since there is a simple and plausible solution to this problem that could potentially end the debate for good, leaving both sides satisfied.
As the scientific field of Neuroscience develops and expands, so too does the discipline of Neuroethics. This new and emerging area of study aims to discuss the ethical applications of advancements in neuroscience. Over the past few decades, technological advancements in neuroscience have risen sharply. Every day, scientist’s understanding of the human mind increases exponentially. New technologies grant researchers the ability to make cognitive enhancements, carry out brain imaging and provide the human brain with a variety of different services. Neuroethics attempts to bridge the capabilities of science, with the social and ethical climate of today’s world. New advancements in what scientists can do, such as Brain Imaging, Cognitive enhancement, pharmacological enhancement of mood, and brain machine interfaces and non-pharmacological enhancement must be carefully examined to determine their proper and ethical usage.
Many studies suggest that there are significant differences in the brain between individuals who possess antisocial personality disorder (psychopathy). While not all people who possess an antisocial personality disorder will become serial killers, every serial killer studied has an antisocial personality disorder; “Neuropsychological testing revealed abnormalities in all subjects tested” (Blake, Pincus, and Buckner 1642). Brain injury, brain abnormalities, or mental illness affects all the serial killers tested. Even if all serial killers had some type of abnormality in the brain, would that mean that they were doomed to become a serial killer? According to the experimental findings discussed in Neurologic Abnormalities in Murderers; 64.5% of serial killers have a frontal lobe dysfunction and 29% have temporal lobe abnormalities. The frontal lobes of the brain “control the essence of our human...
Biological crime theory describes that an individual is born with the desire to commit a certain crime. Evolutionary factors influence an individual’s involvement in criminal behavior. “Biological theories focus on aspects of the physical body, such as inherited genes, evolutionary factors, brain structures, or the role of hormones in influencing behavior” (Marsh, I, 2006, 3). Murderers that are innate to kill are born with factors such as mental illnesses that are the driving force as to why one may kill. Because of the biological crime theory, some individuals, though rare, are able to plead insanity. This is because the actions of the individual are said to be beyond their control (Ministry of Justice, 2006, 3).
Abortion may appear ethical or unethical depending on various viewpoints and circumstances. The fetus is considered a person and bringing it to term may be unethical as the act is considered as murder. In some situations, the mother may require to terminate a pregnancy for her bodily autonomy (Johnston, 2003). In such positions, the resolution to terminate a pregnancy may be argued as the most ethical choice. The mother is also considered to having a reasonable level of ethical responsibility to the fetus, because she did not take enough precaution to ensure avoiding conception (Cline, 2014). The mother’s ethical responsibility to the fetus may not be enough to deprive her choice of abortion; it...
There are various theories within the biological explanation as to why individuals commit criminal behaviour, these include: genetic theory, hereditary theory, psychosis and brain injury theory. In the next few paragraphs examples of each will be shown.
The prevalence and misuse of the insanity defense in our legal system is astounding. Cases upon cases site drugs, brain tumors, car accidents involving head injury, blackouts and antisocial behavior as circumstantial evidence of a crime that was committed. These crimes involve murder, rape and robbery. The question of where criminal accountability lies and how we are able to hold someone accountable for an act may boil down to the brain itself. Where in the brain do reason, morality and inhibition lie? If these areas are affected by some disorder does that then mean that a criminal is no longer held accountable for their actions? Is there a specific area of the brain where accountability itself may lie? These seem to be questions that are not only debated in the classroom, but hospitals and courtrooms as well.