Neuroethics ambivalence: between neuroscience ethics and neuroscience ethics

Modern science, penetrating the mysteries of existence, reveals its multidimensionality and complexity, necessitating the introduction of new concepts that adequately describe its achievements. These include the concept of ambivalence, which is a dialectical relationship of the mutual transition of opposites, capable of existing outside the context of dialectical contradiction. The scientific novelty of this study stems from the use of achievements of the post-Marxist stage of dialectic development. The goal of this study is to find a relevant description of the subject of neuroethics. The ambivalence of neuroethics is a special case of the ambivalence of professional ethics, which requires not only the conscientious performance of professional work but also its ethical justification as aimed at the benefit of the individual and humanity. The uniqueness of neuroethics lies in the fact that neuroscience significantly influences the understanding of morality, transforms established notions, and represents an attempt, albeit hypothetically, to answer philosophical questions using concrete scientific results from the study of brain function. This last circumstance elevates neuroethics to the rank of applied ethics, the solution to whose problems has no historical precedent. The ambivalence of neuroethics as applied ethics is characterized by the contradictory interaction of natural science and humanities knowledge, which problematizes the substantial existence of morality and raises questions about the limits of human freedom. Neuroscientific research can be interpreted as limiting and narrowing the scope of morality. But such a view only scratches the surface; in essence, we are talking about a reconsideration of the foundations of morality, forcing a new answer to the question of human freedom and its limits. Advances in neuroscience and the possibility of their use in neurotechnology increase the effectiveness of manipulation technologies and pose a serious threat to human freedom. Thus, the neuroscientific foundations of ethics necessarily presuppose philosophical reflection. Ethics is a conscious philosophical justification of morality and constitutes an obstacle to unlimited, unjustified influence on the human brain. The study of brain function and its results should contribute to the human good, and only on this basis can a professional code of conduct be developed for scientists engaged in brain research. Today, social and humanities expertise is not a luxury, but a vital necessity. In the context of communicative rationality, humanities expertise must represent a communicative discourse that will not only be interdisciplinary but also located within the space of citizen science.