Abstract

Neuroscience has been described as a revolutionary force that will transform our understanding of common morality and of ethics as a discipline. To such strong naturalistic claims, critiques have responded with an arsenal of antinaturalistic arguments, often negating any contribution of neuroscience. In this paper, I review the terms of the debate between strong naturalists and anti-naturalists and offer a moderate (pragmatic) naturalistic approach as a constructive middle-ground position. Inspired by Dewey’s moral philosophy, I offer an alternate account of how neuroscience broadens our understanding of ethics and moral situations and thus supports a deliberative and iterative process of wisdom-generation.