The neurobiological processes underlying moral judgement have been the focus of Neuroethics. Neurosciences demonstrate which cerebral areas are active and inactive whilst people decide how to act when facing a moral dilemma; in this way we know the correlation between determined cerebral areas and our human acts. We can explain how the ″ethical endowments″ of each person, common to all human beings, is ″embedded″ in the dynamic of cerebral flows. Of central interest is whether emotions play a causal role in moral judgement, and, in parallel, how emotion related areas of the brain contribute to moral judgement. The outcome of man's natural inclinations is on one hand linked to instinctive systems of animal survival and to basic emotions, and on the other, to the life of each individual human uninhibited by automatism of the biological laws, because he is governed by the laws of freedom. The capacity to formulate an ethical judgement is an innate asset of the human mind.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Moral Complexity in Traffic: Advancing the ADC Model for Automated Driving Systems.
Sci Eng Ethics
January 2025
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
The incorporation of ethical settings in Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) has been extensively discussed in recent years with the goal of enhancing potential stakeholders' trust in the new technology. However, a comprehensive ethical framework for ADS decision-making, capable of merging multiple ethical considerations and investigating their consistency is currently missing. This paper addresses this gap by providing a taxonomy of ADS decision-making based on the Agent-Deed-Consequences (ADC) model of moral judgment.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe Moral Psychological Justification of Anger: An Exploration of Self-Respect and Recognition.
Behav Sci (Basel)
December 2024
School of Humanities, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China.
In the field of moral psychology, traditional perspectives often evaluate anger based on its consequences, either validating or condemning it for its perceived benefits or harms. This paper argues for a shift in focus from the outcomes of anger to its moral and psychological foundations. By integrating insights from psychological research, this study posits that the fundamental nature of anger is intrinsically linked to the quest for recognition.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe impact of moral judgment on bystanders' interpersonal trust: the mediating role of trustworthiness.
Front Psychol
January 2025
Faculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China.
Interpersonal trust is the premise and foundation of encouraging cooperation in this age of rapid progress. The purpose of this study was to investigate how moral judgment affects bystanders' interpersonal trust and its internal mechanisms when there are ethical transgressions. The moral judgment of the evaluators was divided into three categories-opposition, neutrality and approval-on the basis of the moral transgressions of the offenders.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFResource-Rational Virtual Bargaining for Moral Judgment: Toward a Probabilistic Cognitive Model.
Top Cogn Sci
January 2025
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Recent theoretical work has argued that moral psychology can be understood through the lens of "resource rational contractualism." The view posits that the best way of making a decision that affects other people is to get everyone together to negotiate under idealized conditions. The outcome of that negotiation is an arrangement (or "contract") that would lead to mutual benefit.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFA Digital Tool for Clinical Evidence-Driven Guideline Development by Studying Properties of Trial Eligible and Ineligible Populations: Development and Usability Study.
J Med Internet Res
January 2025
Advanced Care Research Centre, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Background: Clinical guideline development preferentially relies on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs are gold-standard methods to evaluate the efficacy of treatments with the highest internal validity but limited external validity, in the sense that their findings may not always be applicable to or generalizable to clinical populations or population characteristics. The external validity of RCTs for the clinical population is constrained by the lack of tailored epidemiological data analysis designed for this purpose due to data governance, consistency of disease or condition definitions, and reduplicated effort in analysis code.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!