I think you have hit the nail on the head. There may surely be lots of scientifically interesting and useful reasons for investigating the fine details of the brain processes which eventuate in behaviours -or the uttering of words- which we interpret as moral, but it is far from obvious that this kind of knowledge will advance our understanding of morality.
More generally, there is plausibly a tension (at least on the surface) between two dominant themes on this site:
1) Naturalism: All knowledge—including of what’s rational (moral)- is scientific. To learn what’s rational (moral) our only option is to study our native cognitive endowments.
2) Our/evolution’s imperfection: You can’t trust your untutored native cognitive endowment to make rational (or moral) judgements. Unless we make an effort not to, we make irrational judgements.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. There may surely be lots of scientifically interesting and useful reasons for investigating the fine details of the brain processes which eventuate in behaviours -or the uttering of words- which we interpret as moral, but it is far from obvious that this kind of knowledge will advance our understanding of morality.
More generally, there is plausibly a tension (at least on the surface) between two dominant themes on this site:
1) Naturalism: All knowledge—including of what’s rational (moral)- is scientific. To learn what’s rational (moral) our only option is to study our native cognitive endowments.
2) Our/evolution’s imperfection: You can’t trust your untutored native cognitive endowment to make rational (or moral) judgements. Unless we make an effort not to, we make irrational judgements.