ArticleNeuroethics2019
Procedural Moral Enhancement.
Article in Neuroethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06735989 (Effects of a Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Effects of a Moral Reasoning Intervention on Moral Justification Abilities
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human Enhancement: A Conceptual Scoping Review.The Journal of medicine and philosophy · 2026Article
- Addressing Autonomy Risks in Generative Chatbots with the Socratic Method.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Doctor, please make me freer: Capabilities enhancement as a goal of medicine.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- Why a Virtual Assistant for Moral Enhancement When We Could have a Socrates?Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Better Minds, Better Morals: A Procedural Guide to Better Judgment.Journal of posthuman studies : philosophy, technology, media · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While philosophers are often concerned with the conditions for moral knowledge or justification, in practice something arguably less demanding is just as, if not more, important - reliably making correct moral judgments. Judges and juries should hand down fair sentences, government officials should decide on just laws, members of ethics committees should make sound recommendations, and so on. We want such agents, more often than not and as often as possible, to make the right decisions. The purpose of this paper is to propose a method of enhancing the moral reliability of such agents. In particular, we advocate for a procedural approach; certain internal processes generally contribute to people's moral reliability. Building on the early work of Rawls, we identify several particular factors related to moral reasoning that are specific enough to be the target of practical intervention: logical competence, conceptual understanding, empirical competence, openness, empathy and bias. Improving on these processes can in turn make people more morally reliable in a variety of contexts and has implications for recent debates over moral enhancement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.