With this paper we would like to give a different indication of the usual concerns in neuroethics, which are currently focused on two streams of research: first, tracking down and ex-periencing the neurobiological preconditions of moral capacity and identifying the best use of laboratory research. We believe that such proceeding would run the twofold risk of de-taching research from the complexities of everyday life and losing the originality of the object of study which, paradoxically, is a subject inserted into a space-time context. If, as an object, it is possible to pick delegated areas of the brain, neural connections that trigger the ethical choice and the proper use of such knowledge, failing to look at him also as a sub-ject could make impossible to understand his systemic nature, which is dictated, not only by his own neurobiological correlates, but also by the relationship with the context (frame) and with those numerous others (co-specifics) that do not simply stand in front of him as trees or stones but as other zero points of orientation in the world. This is the reason why we propose an ethics for neurosciences in which the research question focuses on the problem of empathy, and therefore on the interrelationship among fel-lows, as a cognitive problem, with the conviction that the ethical choice is, at the same time, a natural and shared choice. The aim is then to hold together the neuroscience of ethics and the ethics of neurosciences, comparing them with the latest research on the illiteracy of emotions and on the apathetic nature of our actions. The research question is: if we are, as neuroscientists tell us, naturally predisposed to empathy, where does the repeated inability to weave relations not dictated by an epidermal emotional state come from? We believe that this is the node to be resolved, in order to shift from experiments to everyday experience, although it seems to continually betray and disregard the scientific opti-mism. So what? Shall we resign ourselves to the discomforts of civilization giving up the ability to create good relations? Should we refuge in the evidence of what the scientific data show us? Perhaps one way could be to investigate the nature of caring for someone more than that of worrying about something.

Ethics of or for neuroscience?

VENUTI, GIUSEPPINA
2013-01-01

Abstract

With this paper we would like to give a different indication of the usual concerns in neuroethics, which are currently focused on two streams of research: first, tracking down and ex-periencing the neurobiological preconditions of moral capacity and identifying the best use of laboratory research. We believe that such proceeding would run the twofold risk of de-taching research from the complexities of everyday life and losing the originality of the object of study which, paradoxically, is a subject inserted into a space-time context. If, as an object, it is possible to pick delegated areas of the brain, neural connections that trigger the ethical choice and the proper use of such knowledge, failing to look at him also as a sub-ject could make impossible to understand his systemic nature, which is dictated, not only by his own neurobiological correlates, but also by the relationship with the context (frame) and with those numerous others (co-specifics) that do not simply stand in front of him as trees or stones but as other zero points of orientation in the world. This is the reason why we propose an ethics for neurosciences in which the research question focuses on the problem of empathy, and therefore on the interrelationship among fel-lows, as a cognitive problem, with the conviction that the ethical choice is, at the same time, a natural and shared choice. The aim is then to hold together the neuroscience of ethics and the ethics of neurosciences, comparing them with the latest research on the illiteracy of emotions and on the apathetic nature of our actions. The research question is: if we are, as neuroscientists tell us, naturally predisposed to empathy, where does the repeated inability to weave relations not dictated by an epidermal emotional state come from? We believe that this is the node to be resolved, in order to shift from experiments to everyday experience, although it seems to continually betray and disregard the scientific opti-mism. So what? Shall we resign ourselves to the discomforts of civilization giving up the ability to create good relations? Should we refuge in the evidence of what the scientific data show us? Perhaps one way could be to investigate the nature of caring for someone more than that of worrying about something.
2013
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/2542838
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact