↓ Skip to main content

Moral Enhancement Should Target Self-Interest and Cognitive Capacity

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroethics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 435)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
25 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Moral Enhancement Should Target Self-Interest and Cognitive Capacity
Published in
Neuroethics, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12152-017-9331-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rafael Ahlskog

Abstract

Current suggestions for capacities that should be targeted for moral enhancement has centered on traits like empathy, fairness or aggression. The literature, however, lacks a proper model for understanding the interplay and complexity of moral capacities, which limits the practicability of proposed interventions. In this paper, I integrate some existing knowledge on the nature of human moral behavior and present a formal model of prosocial motivation. The model provides two important results regarding the most friction-free route to moral enhancement. First, we should consider decreasing self-interested motivation rather than increasing prosociality directly. Second, this should be complemented with cognitive enhancement. These suggestions are tested against existing and emerging evidence on cognitive capacity, mindfulness meditation and the effects of psychedelic drugs and are found to have sufficient grounding for further theoretical and empirical exploration. Furthermore, moral effects of the latter two are hypothesized to result from a diminished sense of self with subsequent reductions in self-interest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 23%
Philosophy 11 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,482,108
of 25,121,016 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#43
of 435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,330
of 315,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,121,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.