Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
In this fascinating work, Churchland (Touching a Nerve), a philosophy professor emerita at UC San Diego, argues that human conscience is neurobiological in origin, rather than stemming, as contemporary philosophers commonly maintain, from universal moral laws. She proposes a fusion between Hume's theory that humans are "born with a predisposition to be socially sensitive" and her former colleague Francis Crick's conviction that biological evolution ought to figure into any discussion of the origin of ethics. Churchland expresses her view in the simple formula, "Attachment begets caring; caring begets conscience," theorizing that human neurobiology, in having a reward system that "internalizes social norms" via the "pleasure of social approval," leads to a "brain construct" designated as the conscience. Accordingly, humans want to do what their consciences deem right because it enhances their bonds with others. The philosophical divide, as Churchland sees it, comes down to an argument between "wisdom seekers"-with whom she identifies-such as Aristotle, Hume, and the Dalai Lama, who see conscience and morality as intertwined with sociality, and "rule purveyors," from Kant to the present, who search for universal moral laws that can govern all societies. This intellectually rigorous yet highly readable work is well worth the time of anyone interested in why humans feel and think as they do. (June) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Library Journal Review
Churchland (philosophy, Univ. of California, San Diego; Neurophilosophy) is renowned for applying research about the brain in particular, and the biological sciences more generally, to philosophical problems. Here the author investigates morality from this perspective. Moral rules do not arise, she argues, from God's commands or from the requirements of pure reason. To the contrary, they are ways the members of a community can adapt to one another to permit peaceful living. People balance various moral constraints on a case-by-case basis, guided by feelings of sympathy for those within the group. Churchland explores in detail how these emotions arise in the brain. Understanding the nature of moral rules, she holds, is of more than theoretical interest. Those who adhere to the theories she rejects all too often view the dictates of their conscience as unquestionable truth, and this is a potent source of fanaticism and intolerance. Her discussion of the "scrupulous conscience" is valuable, and her criticisms of Kantian morality merit careful consideration. Agree with her or not, readers will benefit from the wealth of information she offers about the brain. VERDICT Readers interested in moral philosophy and the sciences will benefit greatly from this book, which bears comparison with Richard Wrangham's The Goodness Hypothesis. Highly recommended. [See Prepub Alert, 12/17/18.]--David Gordon, Ludwig von Mises Inst., Auburn, AL
(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Kirkus Book Review
The "founder of neurophilosophy" considers the complex, abstract idea of conscience.MacArthur fellow Churchland (Emerita, Philosophy/Univ. of California, San Diego; Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain, 2013, etc.) draws on neuroscience, genetics, psychology, religion, and philosophy to offer a clear, informative examination of the meaning of conscience. How, she asks, do individuals develop a sense of right and wrong? To what extent is conscience shaped by the social world? What accounts for similarities of cooperation and sharing in human behavior? What accounts for psychopathology and for the disdain for honesty, kindness, and decency displayed by some celebrities and politicians? No discipline provides a complete answer to these formidable questions, but Churchland gleans insights from all. Neurobiology identifies the hormone oxytocin as having a large role in facilitating attachment between mothers and infants and between mates. In "strongly bonded marmosets," for example, "fluctuations in oxytocin levels are synchronized." The author notes, however, that no single hormone or genetic inheritance accounts for moral behavior. "Empathizing," she underscores, "is not a single operation, in contrast to, say, an eye-blink response to a puff of air." She was surprised to learn that some complicated personality traits are inheritable: Studies of identical and fraternal twins reveal a genetic link for traits such as extroversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability. But, Churchland cautions, these traits involve hundreds of genes and can be strongly influenced by one's environment. Individuals learn caring behavior by internalizing social norms through a reward system: "the pleasure of social approval and the pain of social disapproval." Psychopathsnarcissistic, pathological liars who show no guilt or remorse for their anti-social behaviorare puzzling outliers: Psychopaths have generated biochemical and psychological theories but no firm explanation for their lack of a moral compass. In addition to biology, Churchland looks to Judeo-Christian and Asian religions and to a range of philosophers who have grappled with ethical issues. She concludes, after all, that conscience "is a brain construct rooted in our neural circuity, not a theological entity thoughtfully parked in us by a divine being."A thoughtful, accessible, and enlightening book. Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
