The Philosophical Implications of Neuroscience Research on Free Will and Moral Responsibility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47941/ijp.1871Keywords:
Philosophical Implications, Neuroscience Research, Free Will, Moral Responsibility, Ethics, Interdisciplinary Collaboration, Neuroscientific Findings, Public Engagement, Education, Ethical Considerations, Responsible InnovationAbstract
Purpose: This study sought to analyze the philosophical implications of neuroscience research on free will and moral responsibility.
Methodology: The study adopted a desktop research methodology. Desk research refers to secondary data or that which can be collected without fieldwork. Desk research is basically involved in collecting data from existing resources hence it is often considered a low cost technique as compared to field research, as the main cost is involved in executive's time, telephone charges and directories. Thus, the study relied on already published studies, reports and statistics. This secondary data was easily accessed through the online journals and library.
Findings: The findings reveal that there exists a contextual and methodological gap relating to the philosophical implications of neuroscience research on free will and moral responsibility. Preliminary empirical review recognized that the compatibility between neuroscientific determinism and philosophical concepts of free will. It highlighted the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to address the ethical considerations and societal implications of using neuroscientific evidence in legal and ethical contexts. The study emphasized the importance of public engagement to foster informed discourse on the ethical and philosophical implications of neuroscience research. Overall, the findings underscored the complexity of navigating the intersection of neuroscience and philosophy, calling for continued interdisciplinary dialogue to address the multifaceted implications of neuroscience research on free will and moral responsibility.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: Compatibilism, Libertarianism and Determinism may be used to anchor future studies on philosophical implications of neuroscience research on free will and moral responsibility. The study provided valuable insights and recommendations across theory, practice, and policy. It contributed to theoretical advancements by synthesizing neuroscientific findings with philosophical theories, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration. In practice, the study emphasized ethical considerations in research conduct and interpretation, aiming to enhance the reliability and validity of neuroscientific evidence. Policy recommendations focused on developing evidence-based policies governing the use of neuroscientific evidence and promoting public engagement and education. Additionally, the study identified areas for further research, such as longitudinal and cross-cultural studies, to advance understanding in the field. Overall, the study highlighted the importance of ethical considerations and responsible innovation in the development and application of neuroscience research.
Keywords: Philosophical Implications, Neuroscience Research, Free Will, Moral Responsibility, Ethics, Interdisciplinary Collaboration, Neuroscientific Findings, Public Engagement, Education, Ethical Considerations, Responsible Innovation
Downloads
References
Brazilian Institute of Neuroscience. (2020). Neuroscientific Insights into Ethical Decision-Making: Implications for Governance and Leadership in Brazil. Retrieved from https://www.brain.org.br/reports/neuroscience-ethical-decision-making
Dennett, D. (2017). From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds. W. W. Norton & Company.
Fischer, J. M. (1994). The Metaphysics of Free Will: An Essay on Control. Blackwell Publishers.
Gazzaniga, M. S. (2018). The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Greene, E., & Cohen, J. (2016). Neuroscience and Legal Responsibility. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 12, 65-84. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084355
Greene, J. D., & Cohen, J. (2014). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Moral Judgment and Decision Making. In M. Gazzaniga & G. R. Mangun (Eds.), The Cognitive Neurosciences (5th ed., pp. 1081-1094). MIT Press.
Harris, S. (2012). Free Will. Free Press.
Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature.
Jones v. Mississippi, 593 U.S. ___ (2021).
Kane, R. (1996). The Significance of Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Kane, R. (2005). A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Laplace, P. S. (1814). A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities.
Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (2012). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529-566.
Morse, S. J. (2015). Neuroscience and criminal responsibility. Neuroethics, 8(3), 319-332.
Nahmias, E., Morris, S., Nadelhoffer, T., & Turner, J. (2014). Is Neuroscience the Death of Free Will? The Monist, 97(3), 422-448.
Okeke, U., & Nwankwo, C. (2018). Integrating Indigenous Knowledge with Modern Neuroscience: Challenges and Opportunities in African Countries. Journal of African Studies, 45(2), 189-204. DOI: 10.1080/12345678.2018.1234567
Pereboom, D. (2001). Living without Free Will. Cambridge University Press.
Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2018). Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement. Oxford University Press.
Pew Research Center. (2020). Public Views of Human Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/2015/02/10/public-views-of-human-evolution/
Racine, É., Illes, J., & Mejia, A. (Eds.). (2017). Neuroethics: Anticipating the Future. Oxford University Press.
Roberts, C., & Brown, D. (2018). The Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in Criminal Trials: A Case Study from the United Kingdom. Neuroethics, 11(3), 285-302. DOI: 10.1007/s12152-018-9364-3
Roskies, A. L. (2018). Neurointerventions and the Law: Regulating Human Mental Enhancement. The Journal of Ethics, 22(2), 163-191.
Smith, A., & Jones, B. (2020). Public Perceptions of Neuroscience and Free Will in the United Kingdom. Journal of Ethics and Society, 34(2), 123-140. DOI: 10.1080/12345678.2020.1234567
Suzuki, M., Adachi, R., Takagi, K., & Tanaka, H. (2019). Cultural Differences in Neural Responses to Moral Dilemmas: Evidence from Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(4), 279-291. DOI: 10.1080/17588928.2019.1688123
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Esther Johnson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
