MixedThe New York Times Book Review... [a] strikingly unphilosophical philosophy book ... To make her case [Churchland] devotes three-quarters of her book to scientific findings connecting brain functions to moral behavior. However, she pays considerably less attention to the ethical theory needed to support her argument and, in the end, doesn’t convince that neurophilosophy should supersede moral philosophy. There are fascinating nuggets in the research Churchland cites, particularly regarding early brain developments that shaped our moral leanings ... Her examples are varied and provocative, but fall short of a unified theory of how the brain motivates morality. She recites the findings ... While comprehensive in scope, Churchland’s book is consistently dry, and the lack of connections between chapters makes for a stilted read. A larger problem, though, is that the science doesn’t support her philosophical theory—presented in the slim final quarter of the book—that neuroscience should replace traditional ethics ... Scholars in either field are unlikely to feel crushed ... Churchland’s engagement with neuroscience makes her an unusual figure in philosophy, and her endeavor is certainly worthwhile. It would be more impressive, though, were she less eager to reject philosophical methods in her embrace of neuroscience. Our moral intuitions may well be grounded in biology, but Churchland fails to explore the most pressing questions of when, or even if, we should rely on such intuitions as a guide.
