Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42400390›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of medicine and philosophy2026

Neurobiological Determinism versus Human Freedom: Competing Explanatory Models and the Hope for Moral Enhancement.

Mark J Cherry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of medicine and philosophy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mark J CherrySt. Edward's University, Austin, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "neuromoral" medical explanatory model of antisocial or inadequately prosocial behavior posits a biological cause for what advocates judge to be immoral activity. Proponents of this model hold that immoral behavior is the result of a dysfunction in a network of neural circuits primarily located in the frontal lobes, believed to be the "neurobiological seat" of ethical choice. Advocates encourage medical treatments, such as transcranial direct current stimulation of the prefrontal cortex, to correct brain functional impairments that presumably cause aggressive, risk-affirming, antisocial, or non-empathetic behavior. Assuming therapy successfully modifies patient behavior toward higher levels of empathy and prosocial activity, while reducing risky or aggressive behavior, such an outcome, given these background assumptions, would constitute medical treatment for immoral behavior-plausibly, a form of "moral enhancement." As I argue, however, neurobiological claims to have found the source of moral decision-making are ambiguous and unjustified or, at least, overstated. Consequently, assertions regarding neurological treatment as moral enhancement should be approached with skepticism.

Indexed as

Biomedical EnhancementFreedomMoralsPersonal AutonomyDecision MakingEmpathyHumansNeurobiologyPhilosophy, MedicalTranscranial Direct Current Stimulationantisocialautonomydeterminismfreedommoral enhancementprosocial

Identifiers

PMID42400390
PMCPMC13592774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.