Scientific Reports 11 (2021)

Morality judgment usually refers to the evaluation of moral behavior`s ability to affect others` interests and welfare, while moral aesthetic judgment often implies the appraisal of moral behavior's capability to provide aesthetic pleasure. Both are based on the behavioral understanding. To our knowledge, no study has directly compared the brain activity of these two types of judgments. The present study recorded and analyzed brain activity involved in the morality and moral aesthetic judgments to reveal whether these two types of judgments differ in their neural underpinnings. Results reveled that morality judgment activated the frontal, parietal and occipital cortex previously reported for motor representations of behavior. Evaluation of goodness and badness showed similar patterns of activation in these brain regions. In contrast, moral aesthetic judgment elicited specific activations in the frontal, parietal and temporal cortex proved to be involved in the behavioral intentions and emotions. Evaluation of beauty and ugliness showed similar patterns of activation in these brain regions. Our findings indicate that morality judgment and moral aesthetic judgment recruit different cortical networks that might decode others' behaviors at different levels. These results contribute to further understanding of the essence of the relationship between morality judgment and aesthetic judgment.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,714
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Moral Beauty, Inside and Out.Ryan P. Doran - 2021 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 99 (2):396-414.
Who Engages with Moral Beauty?Rhett Diessner, Ravi Iyer, Meghan M. Smith & Jonathan Haidt - 2013 - Journal of Moral Education 42 (2):139-163.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Aesthetics is the Grammar of Desire.Jennifer A. McMahon - 2015 - Aesthetic Investigations 1 (1):156-164.
Why Does Empathy Matter for Morality?Carme Isern-Mas & Antoni Gomila - 2019 - Análisis Filosófico 39 (1):5-26.
What the Science of Morality Doesn’T Say About Morality.Gabriel Abend - 2013 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 43 (2):157-200.
The Necessity of Moral Reasoning.Leland Saunders - 2018 - Journal of Value Inquiry 52 (1):37-57.
Kant and the Claims of Taste. [REVIEW]R. H. - 1979 - Review of Metaphysics 33 (2):430-432.
In Sensible Judgment.Max Deutscher - 2012 - Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy/Revue canadienne de philosophie continentale 16 (1):203-225.
From Ecological to Moral Psychology: Morality and the Psychology of Egon Brunswik.Bo Earle - 2000 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 20 (2):196-207.
Aesthetic Rationality.Keren Gorodeisky & Eric Marcus - 2018 - Journal of Philosophy 115 (3):113-140.
Against Aesthetic Judgments.Bence Nanay - 2018 - In Jennifer A. McMahon (ed.), Social Aesthetics and Moral Judgment. London: Routledge.
Critiques of Judgment: A Kantian Reading of Marcuse.Stefan Bird-Pollan - 2013 - Radical Philosophy Review 16 (1):99-107.


Added to PP index

Total views
1 ( #1,516,702 of 2,462,742 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,387 of 2,462,742 )

How can I increase my downloads?


Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes