Harm, risk, and doping analogies: a counter-response to Kious.

Brent Kious has objected to our previous criticism of his views on doping, maintaining that we, by and large, misrepresented his position. In this response, we strengthen our original misgivings, arguing that (1) his views on risk of harm in sport are either uncontroversially true (not inconsistent with the views of many doping opponents) or demonstrably false (attribute to doping opponents an overly simplistic view), (2) his use of analogies (still) indicates an oversimplification of many issues surrounding the question of doping in sports, and (3) his doping analogies are insufficiently precise to support his conclusions.

Dispelling a few false-positives: a reply to MacGregor and McNamee on doping.

McGregor and MacNamee recently, in this journal, offered several criticisms of an earlier article in which I attempted to refute a number of arguments for the claim that doping in sports is morally wrong. Their criticisms are numerous, but focus on four domains. First, they sketch a view on which the risk profiles of different sports may make doping permissible in some and impermissible in others. Second, they suggest that my criticisms of safety-based arguments assume that doping opponents are bent on harm elimination, rather than harm management. Finally, they offer two methodological criticisms, the first pertaining to my use of analogical arguments, and the second pertaining to the general difficulties of making revisionist arguments in ethics. I defend my criticisms of safety-based arguments by showing that these do not rest on the assumptions McGregor and MacNamee attribute to me and by noting that their own view about the variable relevance of safety considerations is underdeveloped. As for their methodological arguments, I endeavor to show that these are misplaced, in that they either rest on misinterpretations of my earlier article or on an excessively high standard for ethical argumentation.

Seria a moralidade determinada pelo cérebro? Neurônios-espelhos, empatia e neuromoralidade / Does the brain have anything to do with morality? Mirror neurons, empathy and neuromorality

O objetivo do artigo é analisar o impacto do progresso das neurociências, em particular da descoberta dos neurônios-espelhos, sobre as teses referentes à moralidade. Analisamos as tentativas atuais de naturalizar a moralidade baseadas nessa descoberta, a partir da qual se reduzem os princípios éticos a propriedades biológicas da natureza humana. Investigamos como os estudos em psicologia sobre a função da empatia, da capacidade de se colocar na perspectiva do outro e da simulação corporificada ganharam nova credibilidade, poder explicativo e, sobretudo, relevância teórica por causa da descoberta dos sistemas de neurônios-espelhos. Como parte desse movimento, observamos novas tentativas nas pesquisas atuais em estabelecer conexões funcionais e possivelmente causais entre o cérebro e o pensamento moral. Consideramos, numa perspectiva crítica, essas tentativas e a busca renovada pela formulação de uma ética naturalizada.

This paper aims to consider the impact of progress in the neurosciences, in particular the discovery of mirror neurons, on the study of morality. It analyzes the current attempts at naturalizing moral principles based on this discovery, reducing human morality to basic biological properties. It explores how psychological studies on empathy, perspective taking and embodied simulation have gained new credibility, explanatory power, and overall theoretical "traction" because of the discovery of mirror neuron systems. As part of this movement, there are now renewed attempts by researchers at establishing functional links, possibly causal links, between brain and moral thought. These attempts and the renewed quest toward naturalizing ethics are critically considered.

Performance-enhancing technologies and moral responsibility in the military.

New scientific advances have created previously unheard of possibilities for enhancing combatants' performance. Future war fighters may be smarter, stronger, and braver than ever before. If these technologies are safe, is there any reason to reject their use? In this article, I argue that the use of enhancements is constrained by the importance of maintaining the moral responsibility of military personnel. This is crucial for two reasons: the military's ethical commitments require military personnel to be morally responsible agents, and moral responsibility is necessary for integrity and the moral emotions of guilt and remorse, both of which are important for moral growth and psychological well-being. Enhancements that undermined combatants' moral responsibility would therefore undermine the military's moral standing and would harm combatants' well-being. A genuine commitment to maintaining the military's ethical standards and the well-being of combatants therefore requires a careful analysis of performance-enhancing technologies before they are implemented.