Neuroethics differs from bioethics by targeting the locus of behavioral causation
Evidence
The role of neuroethics in a theory of morality should be distinguished from the role of bioethics. The latter is primarily concerned with diverse biologically oriented ethical issues such as the use of drugs to enhance performance, genetic counseling about birth defects, genetic engineering and reproductive cloning, use of human stem cells, the moral status of the fetus, informed consent for medical practices and research, use of animals in biomedical research, and the like (Arras, 2010). Neuroethics addresses fundamental issues on the locus of causation in agentic and subpersonal theories of human behavior. These theories have different implications for moral responsibility for one’s actions. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 297
The role of neuroethics in a theory of morality should be distinguished from the role of bioethics. The latter is primarily concerned with diverse biologically oriented ethical issues such as the use of drugs to enhance performance, genetic counseling about birth defects, genetic engineering and reproductive cloning, use of human stem cells, the moral status of the fetus, informed consent for medical practices and research, use of animals in biomedical research, and the like (Arras, 2010). Neuroethics addresses fundamental issues on the locus of causation in agentic and subpersonal theories of human behavior. These theories have different implications for moral responsibility for one’s actions. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 297
Categorization
- DEFINE: A useful crisp distinction: bioethics on biotech questions, neuroethics on where causation for behavior lies and thus where responsibility lands.
- corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 297