Advertisement

Neuroethics

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 237–244 | Cite as

Free Will, Self-Governance and Neuroscience: An Overview

  • Alisa Carse
  • Hilary Bok
  • Debra JH Mathews
Original Paper

Abstract

Given dramatic increases in recent decades in the pace of scientific discovery and understanding of the functional organization of the brain, it is increasingly clear that engagement with the neuroscientific literature and research is central to making progress on philosophical questions regarding the nature and scope of human freedom and responsibility. While patterns of brain activity cannot provide the whole story, developing a deeper and more precise understanding of how brain activity is related to human choice and conduct is crucial to the development of realistic, just, and intellectually rigorous models of human agency and moral responsibility. In this special issue, we acknowledge that “free will” and “moral responsibility” are not concepts with which neuroscience can directly engage, and instead focus on self-governance, and the capacities that contribute to self-governance, which are more tractable for scientific investigation and are prerequisites for the presence of moral responsibility.

Keywords

Free will Self-governance Moral responsibility Neuroscience Decision-making 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our gratitude to the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Henry R. Luce Foundation (through a Professorship to HB) for their generous support for this work. Special thanks to editor Neil Levy for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Scanlon, T. 1998. What we owe to each other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith, A. 2005. Responsibility for attitudes: Activity and passivity in mental life. Ethics 115 (2): 236–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith, A. 2012. Attributability, answerability, and accountability: In defense of a unified account. Ethics 122: 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith, A. 2015. Attitudes, tracing, and control. Journal of Applied Philosophy 32 (2): 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Levy, N. 2015. Neither fish nor fowl: Implicit attitudes as patchy endorsements. Nous 49 (4): 800–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levy, N. 2017. Am I a racist? Implicit bias and the ascription of racism. The Philosophical Quarterly 67 (268): 534–551.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy, N. 2005. The good, the bad and the blameworthy. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 1 (2): 2–16.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roskies, A. 2016. Decision-making and self-governing systems.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9280-9.
  9. 9.
    Fischer, J.M., and M. Ravizza. 1998. Responsibility and control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Watson, G., ed. 1982. Free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Honderich, T. 1988. A theory of determinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pereboom, D. 2001. Living without free will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kane, R., ed. 2011. The Oxford handbook on free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kane, R. 1998. The significance of free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    O'Connor, T. 2000. Persons and causes: The metaphysics of free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bok, H. 1998. Freedom and responsibility. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strawson, G. 1986. Freedom and belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smilansky, S. 2000. Free will and illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roskies, A. 2004. Everyday neuromorality. Cerebrum 6 (4): 58–65.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roskies, A. 2002. Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron 35 (1): 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bourget, D., and D.J. Chalmers. 2014. What do philosophers believe? Philosophical Studies 170 (3): 465–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roskies, A. 2006. Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. Trends in Cognitive Science 10 (9): 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greene, J., and J.D. Cohen. 2004. For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 359: 1775–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nichols, S. 2006. Folk intuitions on free will. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6: 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frankfurt, H. 1971. Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy 68 (1): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brownstein, M., and J. Saul, eds. 2016b. Implicit bias and philosophy: Moral responsibility, structural injustice, and ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dasgupta, N. 2013. Implicit attitudes and beliefs adapt to situations: A decade of research on the malleability of implicit prejudice, stereotypes, and the self-concept. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 47: 233–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huebner, B. 2016. Implicit bias, reinforcement learning, and scaffolded moral cognition. In Implicit Bias and Philosophy: Metaphysics and epistemology, ed. M. Brownstein and J. Saul, 47–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mandelbaum, E. 2016. Attitude, inference, association: On the propositional structure of implicit bias. Nous 50 (3): 629–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brownstein, M., and J. Saul, eds. 2016a. Implicit bias and philosophy: Metaphysics and epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sali, A., Anderson, B., and Courtney, S. 2016. Information processing biases in the brain: Implications for decision-making and self-governance.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9251-1.
  32. 32.
    Niker, F., Reiner, P., and Felsen, G. 2016. Updating our selves: Synthesizing philosophical and neurobiological perspectives on incorporating new information into our worldview. (this volume).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-015-9246-3
  33. 33.
    Kentaro Fujita, Jessica Carnevale, and Yaacov Trope. 2016. Understanding Self-Control as a Whole vs. Part Dynamic.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9250-2.
  34. 34.
    Helion, C. and Ochsner, K. 2016. The Role of Emotion Regulation in Moral Judgment.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-016-9261-z.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyGeorgetown UniversityWashington DCUSA
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Berman Institute of Bioethics and Department of PediatricsJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations