Journal of Cognitive Enhancement

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 369–376 | Cite as

The Cognitive Basis of Commonsense Morality

  • Nada GligorovEmail author
Original Article


The established two tracks of neuroenhancement, moral and cognitive enhancements, rest on the characterization of commonsense morality as a set of static psychological dispositions. In this paper, I challenge this way of describing commonsense morality. I draw a parallel between commonsense psychology and commonsense morality, and I propose that the right way to characterize commonsense morality is as an empirically evaluable theory, with a structure similar to a scientific theory. I argue further that psychological dispositions to react in certain ways require the tacit endorsement of a commonsense moral theory. By adopting this view, I argue that the way to change our psychological dispositions is by changing the background theory that produces them. I conclude that when commonsense morality is construed as an empirically evaluable theory, the cleft between the abilities that support scientific progress and the abilities that promote moral progress closes and it becomes evident that the way to promote both types of advancements is through cognitive enhancement.


Neuroenhancement Cognitive enhancement Commonsense morality Folk psychology Eliminative materialism 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares there are no conflicts of interest.


  1. Advokat, C. D. (2010). What are the cognitive effects of stimulant medications? Emphasis on adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 1256–1266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, K. (2008). It’s in your nature: a pluralistic folk psychology. Synthese, 165, 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bermudez, J. L. (2003). The domain of folk psychology. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 53, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boysen, G. A., & Vogel, D. L. (2008). Education and mental health stigma: the effects of attribution, biased assimilation, and attitude polarization. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(5), 447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carruthers, P. (1996). Language thought and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Churchland, P. M. (1992). A neurocomputational perspective: the nature of mind and the structure of science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  9. Doris, J., Stich, S., Phillips, J., & Walmsley, L. (2017). Moral psychology: empirical approaches, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. N. Zalta (Ed).
  10. Douglas, T. (2013). Moral enhancement via direct emotion modulation: a reply to John Harris. Bioethics, 3(27), 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Thomas Cromwell.Google Scholar
  12. Gligorov, N. (2016). Neuroethics and the scientific revision of common sense (Vol. 11). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2005). Folk psychology as a model. Philosophers’ Imprint, 5(6), 1–15.Google Scholar
  14. Goldstein, B., & Rosseli, F. (2003). Etiological paradigms of depression: the relationship between perceived causes, empowerment, treatment preferences, and stigma. Journal of Mental Health, 12(6), 551–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordon, R. M. (1995). The simulation theory: objections and misconceptions. In Davies and Stone, 1995, 1000–1122.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, J. (2011). Moral enhancement and freedom. Bioethics, 25(2), 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., … Ensminger, J. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795–815.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. (1972). Psychophysical and theoretical identifications. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 50(3), 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2008). The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(3), 162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2012). Unfit for the future: the need for moral enhancement. Oxford: OUP Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2017). Moral hard-wiring and moral enhancement. Bioethics, 31(4), 286–295.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. Scholar
  23. Powell, R., & Buchanan, A. (2016). The evolution of moral enhancement. In The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sellars, W. (1977, 1997 ed.). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Stich, S. (1996). Deconstructing the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Stich, S. (1998). Reflective equilibrium, analytic epistemology and the problem of cognitive diversity. In M. R. DePaul & W. Ramsey (Eds.), Rethinking intuition: The psychology of intuition and its role in philosophical inquiry (pp. 95–113). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc..Google Scholar
  28. Zagvazdin, Y. (2013). Meningitis, a whirlpool of death: literary reflections and Russian cultural beliefs. Progress in Brain Research, 206, 35–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Bioethics Program, Department of Medical EducationIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations