The Ethical Brain: The Science of Our Moral Dilemmas

With the rapid demise of the religious worldview and with the deconstruction of the concept of the soul/self in the twenty-first century, it remains to be seen what system of morals and ethics will supplant the traditions and arbitrary legal codes of the past. There are myriads of possible systems that could be constructed, and no doubt many of these will not be scientific in their foundation or pragmatic in their consequences. Many might be terrified by what is ahead for law and morality, just as they were when Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God and the consequent "eclipse" of moral values in the nineteenth century. His pronouncement was prophetic, if delayed somewhat, and definitely not one that was scientific.This book, written by one of the founders of cognitive neuroscience, gives a proposal for one of these systems, and bases it on what is known from research in neuroscience. It is of course this research that has contributed to the dissolution of the concept of the soul referred to above. It has also called into question the sacred axiom without which ethical systems were held to be impossible: free will.The author though exudes a confidence and calmness of spirit in his deliberations. He is cautious without being anxious, and gives the reader information about what is known in neuroscience, omitting speculation but at the same time anticipating future developments. Several highly interesting issues are discussed, including what moral status is to be conferred to the human embryo, the origin (and end) of consciousness, the enhancement of the human brain via genetic engineering and various drugs, the idea of free will and the neuroscience of determinism (and its legal consequences), the concept of personal responsibility (and its correlation, if any, with the brain), the use of brain fingerprinting, and misattribution and its consequences for the justice system.There are several questions that one could ask after reading this book, depending on the background and interests of the reader. For example, are ethical aphasias possible? Does lying result in permanent disruption of cognitive faculties? Can genetic engineering, in the form of real-time gene therapies, be used to enhance the ethical capabilities of the human brain? What advantages does neuroethics have over ethical systems based on religion? Will humans find neuroethics sufficiently motivating to sustain them throughout the generations ahead? At least to this reviewer, the answers to these questions are of great interest. Neuroethics not only sounds sensible, even given the body of evidence now currently available in the field of neuroscience, but also highly motivating.

The Ethical Brain by Michael Gassaniga is a well researched book that looks to explore many social and ethical dilemma's and how they relate to his field of expertise, neuroscience. In this review I will examine his arguments regarding complicated issues and make opinions regarding their validity based on the presented evidence.Overall OpinionIt is obvious by sixteen pages of endnotes that it was important to the author to offer explanations of controversial moral dilemmas based on extensive research and logical reasoning. In this book Gassaniga addresses issues including abortion and stem cells, neuroscience in the justice system, brain enhancing drugs, and moral ethics. In my opinion, for the most part, this book presents solid facts and compelling evidence for the conclusions he makes. The author does a good job of using compelling examples to hold the reader's attention. This includes the common layperson that may not have an interest in the field of neuroscience. The book offers an enlightening perspective from a neuroscientist regarding issues that billions of people hold very strong opinions. His expertise in the field of neuroscience allows him to present the evidence in a way that a philosopher could not.Part 1: Lifespan NeuroethicsIn chapter one, Gazzaniga tackles one of the most hotly debated social issues in America. He looks to define the moral status of an unborn embryo. He presents evidence that embryo's under the age of fourteen days have no nervous system, can still split into twins, or rejoin into chimeras (two eggs that become one person). He also says that before twenty-three weeks, the embryo does not have the cognitive ability to be considered "alive". He uses the example of the definition of "brain dead" to illustrate this point. Gazzaniga comes to the conclusion that though many consider twenty-three weeks (some up to thirty-two weeks) as the beginning of life, he feels that only embryos under fourteen weeks should be used for stem-cell research. I tend to agree with and respect Gazzaniga's assessment. Though he does not believe in the concept of a "soul" he can still look at a twenty-three week old embryo and see the beginnings of humanity despite the views of others in his field. This is a sensitive subject for many people and despite a statement made about a blastocyte being "just a clump of cells", Gazzaniga delivers his conclusion in a way that even naysayers and religious people are forced to recognize as logical.In chapter two Gazzaniga discusses the issue of "mercy killing" or euthanasia of the elderly with dementia and related disorders. He presents evidence against euthanasia by reporting that patients with disorders such Alzheimer's often do not even realize the mental facilities they have lost and therefore can live happy lives. In cases when this is not true he comes to the conclusion that people should be allowed to have a "dignified death" if they are being destroyed by degenerative disease (33). Though I have never considered suicide morally acceptable, the author does a decent job of describing euthanasia as a dignified death. Many people believe that we have a purpose on this earth outside of our own, but no one wants to die slowly by a disease that cannot be cured. Gazzaniga does an excellent job of making this point resonate with the reader.Part 2: Brain EnhancementThough many people believe that prenatal gene therapy is unethical, in chapter three, Gazzaniga asks readers to first consider three questions: Is gene replacement possible? Would it be beneficial? Would it be an ethical practice? To answer the third question the author discusses the theory of hyperagency. This is the concept of humans "remaking" nature to help us satisfy our own needs and desires (40). Though some people find this unethical, he describes this as the next step in evolution. He describes a situation in which the use of gene technology (for uses of gender selection) could harm a society if one gender's population gets out of control. His conclusion is that we will not misuse the technology to cause the world problems because we have never used our technology to annihilate ourselves. He goes on to say that we should use any technology we can dream up because we have an innate ability to restrain ourselves (54). Though this conclusion may seem logical, the author fails to point out a major problem with his theory. He uses the example of nuclear weapons and says that though we used them in WWII, an "innate morals-ethics system" prevents us from "going to far" by using them again. I find this logic dangerously optimistic. Currently there is a nuclear arms race in which countries hope to gain nuclear capabilities and it could be argued that it is only a matter a time before such weapons are used again.In chapters four and five Gazzaniga contrasts the use of drugs to improve motor functions (steroids, etc) and memory assisting drugs (caffeine, Ritalin, etc.). He says that the use of some drugs that could reduce GABA (inhibitor of practice dependent plasticity) could reduce practice time for learning a new activity or retaining a memory. He says that this could also be very dangerous and more study would be needed. He then concludes that drugs such as caffeine are ethical to use because unlike steroids no social contract with one's competition is being broken (70). He then says that we deserve to use any kind of memory enhancing drug because it is Mother Nature that has "wronged" us if we have poor memories (73). He says that the development of memory enhancing drugs is inevitable and should not be regulated by the government but rather by the users. The author's claim that using caffeine and similar drugs to enhance one's memory is perfectly ethical is clear and logical. However, the idea that Mother Nature has somehow wronged someone who is perhaps a slow learner seems like an odd argument. While the majority of the book places emphasis on evidence and reason, this statement seems somewhat nonsensical. The idea that Mother Nature has wronged and we therefore "deserve" to use memory-enhancing drugs seems to lack the logic that the author displays throughout the rest of the book.Part 3: Free Will, Personal Responsibility, and the LawIn chapter six, the author debates the defense, that many lawyers argue in court, that some criminals cannot control what they do but have a genetic or acquired brain disorder that absolves them from responsibility of their actions. He presents evidence that even though genes build the brain, the brain makes the decisions. He also describes the mechanism of decision making as "veto power" (93). This is to say that some decisions are "automatic", performed by our subconscious and that we essentially veto decisions that go against our "moral code". He describes patients with ADP that have damage to the prefrontal cortex and therefore lose the ability to "veto" these choices. He reaches the conclusion that neuroscience cannot explain "responsibility" for ones actions. Responsibility is a trait of humans, not the brain (101). I agree that responsibility for one's actions cannot be determined by study of the brain. This discussion of the brain is well researched and the author's conclusion is sound.In chapter seven Gazzaniga discusses the issue of using fMRI technology as a lie a detector, or to "read minds". Some believe that it could be used to tell when a person has racist thoughts to show motive in court. He argues however that this technology has many instances of false positives. He claims "minds can't be read, only brains" (119). The use of this technology to exonerate or condemn seems to be a gross violation of the Fifth Amendment. The author does a good job of illustrating this point and providing evidence that this technology is not reliable enough for courtroom use.Chapter eight goes into great detail about how our brains encode and store memory. He concludes that human memories can be contaminated in a variety of ways and eyewitness testimony is often unreliable (140). Though the moral dilemma of this chapter is not as controversial, in my opinion, this was the most interesting chapter in the book. Extensive examples were given as to how the brain makes mistakes when encoding memories that can lead to incredible errors in memory. His conclusion that memories are too faulty to be trusted in a court of law is likely one that will never be addressed by the Justice Department. Though mistakes are made, witness testimonies will likely always be used in the court of law.Part 4: The Nature of Moral Beliefs and the Concept of Universal EthicsGazzaniga makes the case in chapter 9 that human brains are susceptible to creating beliefs to explain our surroundings. These beliefs are often hard to be changed regardless of evidence to the contrary. This fact seems to be prevalent in the case of scientists. The author presents very convincing evidence, through a study of split-brain patients, that the "left-brain interpreter" creates beliefs to explain things in our surroundings that we cannot explain. The person may continue to believe these stories even if evidence suggest that it is not true (148-149). He also suggests that religion is one of the left brain "stories" and that many "religious visions" may be due to brain disorders such as epilepsy (158). This chapter is likely the most controversial in the book. Gazzaniga makes many claims about religion, some well founded, others not. Though the research shows that the left-brain can interpret unexplainable events by creating a fantasy, it seems like a jump to say that all religious beliefs are a construct of the left-brain. Though the author generally seemed understanding to other's views throughout the book, he ceased in this practice when stating that the concept of religion is a simply a "story". He goes on to make claims that religious figures (Saul from the Bible, Muhammad) that "saw visions", were "possibly" suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy. Though religious visions may be symptoms of TLE, it seems unreasonable to claim that leaders of various religions are simply victims of TLE without any substantial evidence.In chapter ten, Gazzaniga discusses the hope that we could create a "universal ethics". He concludes that and ideal ethics is one not necessarily comprising of facts, but a system that arises from being human, which is contextual, emotion-influenced, and designed to increase our survival (177). He also asserts that though improbable, a universal ethics is possible and we should strive towards it. Gazzaniga's hope that there could be a universal ethics, though possibly ideal, is an unattainable dream. It is a nice idea that everyone could somehow put aside their differences and adopt one moral belief system, but no matter how hard we "strive" for it, there will never be a universal code of ethics.My Final ThoughtsFor the most part this book was a very enjoyable read. A lot of research was compiled and shared in a way that allows the reader a chance to better understand how his or her brain works. The author chose controversial topics to tackle and did a good job of arguing his points as a scientist, but also understanding that some moral dilemmas must be examined simply as a human. I agree with many of his conclusions, but I do not agree with how he discussed the idea of religion. Even if religion is a construct of the left-brain, his statement regarding human's (and especially scientists') resistance to belief change, even in the face of contradictory evidence, should have directed him to stay away from using such a belittling tone when addressing the beliefs of billions of people worldwide.I would recommend this book to anyone who would like to gain a new perspective regarding the discussed ethical dilemmas or anyone interested in learning more about how the brain works. This book offers scientific data in a way that is easy for a layperson to understand while addressing issues too complicated for most scientists to understand. Though religious people may take exception to certain assertions, many points are well founded and people can make decisions for themselves.

Gazzaniga, once again, demonstrates his mastery of a complex subject as well as the English language. His conversational, personal style is very effective in constructing the informational substructure necessary to launch into the complexities of neurobehavioral concepts. He is obviously comfortable in this arena which radiates through his presentation of the subject. He gives the reader everything promised in the book's title. Anyone interested in learning (or relearning) about the complex decision making necessary for humans to be the social creatures we are can give themselves no better start than with this book (or any other of his several very readable books) .John R. Seals, M.D.

"The Ethical Brain" is a well written and easly understood book, but somewhat academic in nature. It covers both the known areas of brain function and discusses much of the unkown process of the brain.Excellent reading.However, the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell should be read after reading "The Ethical Brain". These two books complement each other.

Not easy reading, unless you already have a firm grasp of the subject matter, personally, I had to reread some paragraphs repeatedly so it could penetrate my concrete head. All in all --- I really enjoyed this book. Against my better judgement I loaned my hardback out and now I'm seriously thinking about buying another copy. Spend the money and get your head informed.

A new and defiance view. Puts the subject on earth. Our brain moves forward and reach a new status of knowledge. Gives an interesting focus on a subject that has been dark for ages. Worth reading it

Great book for class. Arrived in perfect condition.

good book for college

Awesome

É didático como qualquer outro livro do autor.