A principled and cosmopolitan neuroethics: considerations for international relevance

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

James Giordano¹  John R Shook² 

[1] Human Science Center, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität, Munich, GER, Germany;Philosophy Department and Graduate School of Education, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

关键词: Medical ethics;    Cosmopolitanism;    Meta-ethics;    Cultural pluralism;    Principled neuroethics;    Prescriptive neuroethics;    Neuroscience;   

Others  :  816380
DOI  :  10.1186/1747-5341-9-1

 received in 2013-12-22, accepted in 2013-12-22,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Neuroethics applies cognitive neuroscience for prescribing alterations to conceptions of self and society, and for prescriptively judging the ethical applications of neurotechnologies. Plentiful normative premises are available to ground such prescriptivity, however prescriptive neuroethics may remain fragmented by social conventions, cultural ideologies, and ethical theories. Herein we offer that an objectively principled neuroethics for international relevance requires a new meta-ethics: understanding how morality works, and how humans manage and improve morality, as objectively based on the brain and social sciences. This new meta-ethics will simultaneously equip neuroethics for evaluating and revising older cultural ideologies and ethical theories, and direct neuroethics towards scientifically valid views of encultured humans intelligently managing moralities. Bypassing absolutism, cultural essentialisms, and unrealistic ethical philosophies, neuroethics arrives at a small set of principles about proper human flourishing that are more culturally inclusive and cosmopolitan in spirit. This cosmopolitanism in turn suggests augmentations to traditional medical ethics in the form of four principled guidelines for international consideration: empowerment, non-obsolescence, self-creativity, and citizenship.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Shook and Giordano; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Levy N: Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
• [2]Racine E: Pragmatic Neuroethics: Improving Treatment and Understanding of Mind-Brain. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010.
• [3]Giordano J: Neuroethics: traditions, tasks and values. Hum Prospect 2011, 1(1):2-8.
• [4]Giordano J: Integrative convergence in neuroscience: trajectories, problems and the need for a progressive neurobioethics. In Technological innovation in sensing and detecting chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear threats and ecological terrorism. Edited by Vaseashta A, Braman E, Sussman P. New York: Springer; 2012.
• [5]Giordano J, Olds J: On the interfluence of neuroscience, neuroethics and legal and social issues: the need for (N) ELSI. AJOB Neurosci 2010, 2(2):13-15.
• [6]Chen D, Quiron R: From internationaliszation to globalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics. Edited by Illes J, Sahakian B. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:823-834.
• [7]Lombera S, Illes J: The international dimensions of neuroethics. Dev World Bioethics 2009, 9:57-64.
• [8]Blank R: Globalization: pluralist concerns and contexts, shaping international policy in neuroethics. In Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives in Neuroethics. Edited by Giordano J, Gordijn B. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010:321-342.
• [9]Giordano J, Benedikter R: Neurotechnology, culture and the need for a cosmopolitan neuroethics. In Advances in Neurotechnology: Premises, Potential and Problems. Edited by Giordano J. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012:231-239.
• [10]Justo L, Erazun F: Neuroethics needs an international human rights international frame. AJOB Neurosci 2010, 1(4):17-18.
• [11]Toope S: Internationalism and global norms for neuroethics. Am J Bioethics 2009, 9:1-2.
• [12]Roskies A: Neuroethics for a new millennium. Neuron 2002, 35:21-23.
• [13]Giordano J: Neuroethics: interacting “traditions” as a viable metaethics. AJOB Neurosci 2011, 22:17-19.
• [14]Fischbach B, Mindes J: Why neuroethicists are needed. In The Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics. Edited by Illes J, Sahakian B. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:343-376.
• [15]Frederico C, Lombera S, Illes J: Intersecting complexities in neuroimaging and neuroethics. In The Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics. Edited by Illes J, Sahakian B. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:377-387.
• [16]Churchland PS: Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells us About. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2011.
• [17]Shook J, Gelfand S: Ectogenesis: Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction. Amsterdam and New York: Editions Rodopi; 2006.
• [18]Hellsten S: Global bioethics: utopia or reality? Dev World Bioethics 2008, 8(2):70-81.
• [19]Myser C: Differences from somewhere: the normativity of whiteness in bioethics in the United States. Am J Bioethics 2003, 3(2):1-11.
• [20]Po-Wah J: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the (Im) possibility of Global Bioethics. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2002.
• [21]Turner L: From the local to the global: bioethics and the concept of culture. J Med Phil 2005, 30:305-320.
• [22]Agar N: Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010.
• [23]Habermas J: The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2003.
• [24]Banja J: Virtue essentialism, prototypes, and the moral conservative opposition to enhancement technologies: a neuroethical critique. AJOB Neurosci 2011, 2(2):31-38.
• [25]Hughes J: Contradictions from the enlightenment roots of transhumanism. J Med Phil 2011, 35:622-640.
• [26]De Vries R, Gordijn B: Empirical ethics and its alleged meta-ethical fallacies. Bioethics 2009, 23(4):193-201.
• [27]Glannon W: Brain, Body, and Mind: Neuroethics with a Human Face. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
• [28]Shook J, Solymosi T: Neuropragmatism: a way forward. In Neuroscience, Neurotechnology and Neuroethics: At the Intersection of Mind, Morality and Culture. Edited by Giordano J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
• [29]Shook J: The design of morality. In Origin (s) of Design in Nature. Edited by Swan L. New York: Springer; 2012:161-190.
• [30]Churchland PM: Toward a cognitive neurobiology of the moral virtues. In Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives in Neuroethics. Edited by Giordano J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010:146-171.
• [31]Giordano J, Benedikter R: An early - and necessary - flight of the Owl of Minerva: neuroscience, neurotechnology, human socio-cultural boundaries, and the importance of neuroethics. J Evol Technol 2012, 22(1):14-25.
• [32]Lindemann H, Walker M, Verkerk MS: Naturalized Bioethics: Toward Responsible Knowing and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
• [33]Flanagan O, Sarkissian H, Wong D: Naturalizing ethics. In Moral Psychology, Volume 1: The Evolution of Morality. Edited by Sinnott-Armstrong W. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007:1-26.
• [34]Wong D: Natural Moralities. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
• [35]Casebeer W: Moral cognition and its neural constituents. Nature Rev Neurosci 2003, 4:840-847.
• [36]Morse S: Moral and legal responsibility and the new neuroscience. In Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice, and Policy. Edited by Illes J. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006:33-50.
• [37]Roskies A: How does neuroscience affect our concept of volition? Ann Rev Neurosci 2010, 33:109-130.
• [38]Reiner P: The rise of neuroessentialism. In The Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics. Edited by Illes J, Sahakia B. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:161-175.
• [39]Harris S: The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. NY: Free Press; 2010.
• [40]Gerrans P, Kennett J: Neurosentimentalism and moral agency. Mind 2010, 119:585-614.
• [41]Joyce R: The Myth of Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
• [42]Wielenberg E: On the evolutionary debunking of morality. Ethics 2010, 120:441-464.
• [43]Levy N: Neuroethics: a new way of doing ethics. AJOB Neurosci 2011, 2(2):3-9.
• [44]Fuchs S: Against Essentialism: A Theory of Culture and Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2005.
• [45]Verkuyten M: The Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity. London and New York: Routledge; 2005.
• [46]Giordano J: Neurotechnology as demiurgical force: avoiding Icarus’ folly. In Advances in Neurotechnology: Premises, Potential and Problems. Edited by Giordano J. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012:1-13.
• [47]Benedikter R, Giordano J: The outer and inner transformation of the global sphere through technology: the state of two fields in transition. New Global Stud 2011, 5(2):1-17.
• [48]Benedikter R, Giordano J, FitzGerald K: The future of the self-image of the human being in the age of transhumanism, neurotechnology and global transition. Futures 2010, 42(1):1102-1109.
• [49]Loveless S, Giordano J: Neuroethics, painience, and neurocentric criteria for the moral treatment of animals. Camb Q Healthcare Ethicsin press
• [50]Shook J: Comparative political philosophy: categorizing political philosophies using twelve archetypes. Metaphilosophy 2009, 40:633-655.
• [51]Beck U: Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2006.
• [52]Fine R: Cosmopolitanism. London: Routledge; 2006.
• [53]Held D: Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2010.
• [54]Beardsworth R: Cosmopolitanism and International Relations Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2011.
• [55]Bohman J: Democracy across Borders: From Demos to Demoi. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2007.
• [56]Appiah KA: The Ethics of Identity. Princeton University Press: Princeton; 2005.
• [57]Benhabib S: Another cosmopolitanism. In Another Cosmopolitanism. Edited by Post R. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006:13-80.
• [58]Delanty G: The Cosmopolitan Imagination: The Renewal of Critical Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
• [59]Van Hooft S: Cosmopolitanism: A Philosophy for Global Ethics. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 2009.
• [60]Sen A: The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009.
• [61]Brock G: Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
• [62]McCullough L: Was bioethics founded on historical and conceptual mistakes about medical paternalism? Bioethics 2011, 25(2):66-74.
• [63]Shook J: Euthanasia, unnecessary suffering, and the proper aims of medicine. In Science and Ethics: Can Science Help us Make Wise and Moral Judgments?. Edited by Kurtz P, Koepsell D. Amherst: Prometheus Books; 2007:125-140.
• [64]Doucet H: Anthropological challenges raised by neuroscience. Camb Q Healthcare Ethics 2007, 16:219-226.
• [65]Beauchamp T, Childress J: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1979.
• [66]National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare: Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Bethesda: Government Printing Office; 1978.
• [67]Englehardt HT: Global Bioethics: The Collapse of Consensus. Salem: M& M Scrivener Press; 2006.
• [68]Andorno R: Human dignity and human rights as a common ground for global bioethics. J Med Phil 2009, 34:223-240.
• [69]De Melo-Martin I: Human dignity in international policy documents: a useful criterion for public policy? Bioethics 2011, 25(1):37-45.
• [70]Beauchamp T: Standing on Principles: Collected Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
• [71]Gordon J-S, Rauprich O, Vollmann J: Applying the four-principle approach. Bioethics 2011, 25(6):293-300.
• [72]Baker R, McCullough L: The Cambridge World History of Medical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
• [73]Biller-Andorno N: Bioethics in a globalized world: creating space for flourishing human relationships. Bioethics 2011, 25(8):430-436.
• [74]Lev O: Will biomedical enhancements undermine solidarity, responsibility, equality and autonomy? Bioethics 2011, 25(4):177-184.