A defense of the importance of neuroscience for ethics

Abstract

This paper offers arguments in support of the relevance of neuroscience for philosophy, in reply to the arguments against it developed by Vidiella. According to Vidiella, neuroscience cannot make significant contributions to ethics, and its consideration can even be counterproductive, since it involves a defense of determinism, it may endanger some of the moral achievements of our times, and it would entail incurring in the naturalistic fallacy. Against these claims, I will argue, firstly, that neuroscientific studies enable us to transcend the opposition freedom/determinism while illuminating the role of responsibility and punishment. Secondly, that they can aid in dealing with current ethical problems without forcing us to praise every paleolitical trait that has been selected by Nature. And, thirdly, that taking them into account in dealing with normative problems does not necessarily entail committing the naturalistic fallacy.