Michael Gazzaniga Response To Universal Ethics Summary

A Basis for Ethics
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

Gazzaniga claims that “it is hard to arrive at absolute rules to live by that we can all agree on. But knowing that morals are contextual and social, and based on neural mechanisms, can help us determine certain ways to deal with ethical issues.”(Gazzaniga, 430 para. 37). A universal ethics would mean that everyone was held to the same standard, which would help with all forms of equality, and it would mean that every county or city one went to the same ethical guidelines would apply. In addition, Gazzaniga’s theory is that, since his scientific ethics would be formed from the brain reactions, every person would be able to accept and conform to said universal ethics, because all of their brains work the same- with few exceptions. Moreover, this ethical theory could not be changes for one's benefit, as governments or authority figures would have no control over it, this ethics would be dispassionate, and it’s evidence and science base would make ethical decisions hard to argue, as it would ether go with or against the brain's natural