Report on my (Koji Tachibana's) presentation "Neuroscience of Morality and the Philosophical Examinations" at the annual meeting of Philosophy of Science Society, Japan (40th.)
The day before yesterday (10/11/2007), I read a paper on "Neuroscience of Morality and the Philosophical Examinations" at the annual meeting of Philosophy of Science Society, Japan (40th.).
I set 30 resumes on a table. And none is left. So, I guess more than 30 people got interested in and took part in my topic (thank you for coming!).
In the presentation, I surveyed two situations; (1) the activity and fruits of neuroscience of morality and (2) the Japanese government’s policy on neuroscience (brain science). According to these two situations, I distinguished three types of philosophical examinations and detailed each feature (it's Aristotle's favorite style).
In the discussion time (only about 5 minutes), three scholars questioned me. First question was about my argument, second about the causes of the VMPFC (ventromedial prefrontal cortex) damages and third about the advantage of philosophers in politics. Their questions are important. I think I replied appropriately, but they taught me that I had to say these things more clearly in my paper.
Many young scholars (including my colleagues) were highly interested in my presentation (after the presentation, they talked and mailed to me on my presentation), but some members of the audience might not have been so much. (this is merely my impression, so they might have been so, vice versa.) Anyway, I think I could understand one reason why young scholars sympathize with my proposal. We (about 20~30 years old young scholars) want to know what we, as philosophers, can do in Japanese society of today.
Of course, some kinds of philosophical issues (e.g. metaphysics) are important. But I think we can do much more things as philosophers. For the last few decades, Philosophical ethics successfully took part in society as applied ethics. But I think we philosophers can take part in society not only in the field of applied ethics but also in another way i.e. scientific activity and normative role toward citizens. These types of activities are needed scientifically and socially. This is what I showed in my presentation.
P.S.:
My presentation, as itself, might not be philosophical one. But I think we as philosophers need to be sensitive to what I argued when we examine neuroscience of morality. As I said in my presentation, "It's time for Philosophers to go back to society".
This article is written by myself (Koji TACHIBANA), so it might (must?) be bad English. Thank you for reading.