Neurophilosophy, naturalism and statute of moral judgments

Recent developments in the neuroscience offer an increasing amount of "brain-based" explanations of decision-making in ethics (and economics). Are those explanations more basic than the psychological, "social" or philosophical ones? In my paper I address this question analyzing the meaning of "because" in sentences like "when someone is willing to act on a moral belief, it is because the emotional part of his or her brain has become active when considering the moral question at hand" (M. Gazzaniga, The Ethical Brain, 2005, p. 167, emphasis added). My answer is a pluralistic one. I reject brain-fundamentalism and I argue that neuroscientific developments support a moderate form of naturalism, according to which empirical results may indirectly influence moral reflection, but offer no direct evidence to radical reductive naturalism.