ASEBL Journal – Volume 10 Issue 1, January 2014
ethics. By investigating the cognitive and evolutionary origins of moral sentiment, we
do not invalidate that sentiment in policy discussion. Sentiment is inextricable from
human thought. Rather, the science of ethics imposes a burden of proof on those who
would exploit isolated anecdotes to evoke irrational emotion and then leap to non
sequitur generalizations which would regulate the lives of others. It requires us to
factor in actual outcomes, such as the loss of life that follows from denial of treatment,
instead of assuming that Providence will protect the righteous.
The introduction of these new criteria will require a reevaluation of those who have
been designated as moral authorities. Recognizing the all-too-human (or mammalian)
motivations of moralists naturally prompts a reevaluation of trust, and it is with the
question of trust, particularly when it comes to the formation of institutions like the
Bioethics Council, that Churchland concludes Braintrust.
[W]hat kind of regulations should govern stem cell research? To begin to
make progress on that question, one has to know quite a lot of science – what
stem cells are, what about them makes them suitable for medical research and
therapy, what diseases might be addressed using stem cell research, and what
objections might be raised against it. (204)
These are simple questions, but they illustrate the false dichotomy of is and ought.
While these questions do not exclude moral philosophers, theologians, or arm-chair
commentators, they do introduce new requirements for methodological rigor,
predictive accuracy, and accountability in a discourse which has traditionally relied on
ad hoc reasoning and sensationalist anecdotes.
As research into the structure of the brain progresses, questions about brain-based
morality are going to become even more common and more heated. Recently,
President Barack Obama introduced the BRAIN Initiative, a project akin to the
Human Genome Project. Assisting him with this introduction was NIH Director
Francis Collins, who is serving as de facto director of the BRAIN Initiative in its early
stages. In the past, Collins has not been shy about his belief in the metaphysical
origins of moral judgment. Explaining his book, The Language of God: A Scientist
Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins explicitly bars moral cognition from scientific
study, implying that some sort of social collapse will follow if we get too inquisitive:
After evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced ‘house,’ the human brain
with all of its neurological complexity, God gifted humanity with something
special that makes us different from all the animals, the knowledge of good
and evil, the Moral Law, with free will, which is not an illusion, and with a
soul. . . If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such
thing as right or wrong, good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been
hoodwinked by natural selection into thinking that there is such a thing. Are
any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives
within that worldview? (2008)
The answer to that last question would be equally well put to Collins, himself. A
geneticist and professional administrator, he is new to neurobiology, and it remains to
be seen if his stated beliefs will conform to the evidence or if he will follow in the
footsteps of morally-certain policy makers like Kass and Meileander. For
40