Lecture 12 neuroetics

Neuroethics

Neuroethics is a response to the rapid advancements in neuroscience and neurotechnology.

Neuroscience and neurotechnologies often start with medical goals, but they also teach us more about how the mind works.

What is Neurotechnology?

Neurotechnology = technology that records or modifies brain activity.

Basic forms have existed for a long time, but modern neurotech has become far more advanced.

There are two main types:

  1. Visualizing the brain

  2. Recording the brain

Example: EEG (electroencephalography)

Non-medical Applications of Neurotechnology

1. fMRI-based lie detection

  • Measures brain activity when lying vs telling the truth

  • But the accuracy is still unclear / questionable

2. Neuromarketing

  • Records emotions and motivations of consumers

  • Focuses on what the brain “likes” and “wants”

  • Used for marketing decisions

Ethical Issues

  • Brain privacy

  • Secondary use of brain data (data used for other purposes)

  • Bias and discrimination (e.g., detecting racial bias in the brain and using it in hiring)

  • Overtrust in brain images → brain scans can seem more objective or accurate than they really are, leading to wrong assumptions

Neurotechnologies That Stimulate the Brain

  • Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)

  • Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS)

Non-medical examples:

Cognitive enhancement

  • Improving normal, healthy brains

  • Raises the question: enhancement vs treatment

Moral enhancement

  • Influencing mood, empathy, trust, or aggression

  • Promoting prosocial or law-abiding behavior

More Ethical Issues

Closed-loop Deep Brain Stimulation (cIDBS) or BCIs (Brain-Computer Interfaces)
These can automatically adjust based on brain activity, raising new concerns.

Why Neurotech Is Unique

Many technologies raise ethical issues, but neurotech is different because it can interfere directly with the mind.

It may challenge how we think about:

  • what it means to be human

  • personal identity

  • autonomy and free will

Separating Science from Science Fiction

  • When predicting the future of neurotech, we should separate real science from hype

  • But progress in the last decades was extremely fast

  • Ethics should not wait until problems already appear

Neurotechnologies and Personal Identity

Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS)

  • Electrodes are placed in specific brain areas to stimulate neurons

  • Can change mental states and behavior

  • Used for conditions like Parkinson’s, OCD, depression, and addiction

  • Highly invasive

DBS and identity

  • By changing a person’s mental states, DBS may also change aspects of their personality

  • This can disrupt personal identity

Personal identity = staying the same person over time

Psychological Continuity Principle:
Person X at time T1 is the same as person Y at time T2 if they are psychologically continuous.

If neurotech changes you too much, you might become “someone else.”

Psychological Continuity and Responsibility for Action

In the law, people are usually treated as rational, intentional agents whose actions are guided by reason.

If people are assumed to be incapable of at least a minimal level of rational control, this becomes a problem for legal responsibility.

People’s behavior can also be strongly influenced by medication.

In legal contexts, an intoxicated individual can sometimes be declared not fully responsible for their actions.

Because of this, DBS-induced changes in psychological continuity might be treated like cases of involuntary intoxication.

→ Meaning:
If DBS disrupts psychological continuity, a person may have reduced or no responsibility for their actions.

Anaolgy with diddocaitive identity disorder (DID)

  • People iwht DID have alternatie identities tekae control over persons behavior

If a person with DID acts in a morally or legaaly bad way who is responsible

In legal contxt disscioation at time of crime reducs

Mental competence With DBS

Example Case

A 62-year-old patient with Parkinson’s disease received Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS).

After the surgery:

  • Motor symptoms improved → no more physical impairments
    but

  • Psychiatric functioning became impaired → changes in mood, personality, or behavior

This shows that:

  • DBS can restore physical abilities,
    but at the same time

  • disrupt psychological continuity, which may affect identity and responsibility for actions.

Neurotech and personal identity

  • neuro tech have the potential to disrupt a persons psychlogical continuity

Neurotechnology and Personal Identity

Neurotechnology can disrupt a person’s psychological continuity — meaning it can change how someone thinks, feels, or acts over time.

Psychological continuity is important because it supports our moral relationships (being the same person who made a promise) and our prudential relationships (caring about our future self).

Neuro-law

“Neuro-law” is becoming more important and may soon appear in courtrooms.

Neuroimaging can be used for many purposes, such as:

  • understanding mental states

  • detecting abnormalities

  • evaluating responsibility

In the US, neuroimaging is already used in legal cases.
In the EU, it is rarely used because of:

  • ethical concerns

  • doubts about accuracy

  • the idea that the brain is not the only factor in behavior

Rights of Offenders

Using neuroimaging in court may interfere with important rights, such as:

  • Mental privacy

  • Freedom of thought

Neurointerventions

Neurotechnologies that stimulate the brain can be used as neurointerventions to support rehabilitation.
By targeting specific brain areas, these technologies may alter mental states and behavior.

The goal is often to reduce criminogenic traits, lower the risk of reoffending, and ultimately decrease recidivism rates.
In some cases, neurointerventions may offer a less restrictive alternative to long-term incarceration.

Why consider neurointerventions for criminal rehabilitation?

  • High recidivism rates
    Many criminal justice systems struggle with persistent reoffending.

  • Mental and physical effects of incarceration
    Researchers have identified several harmful factors related to imprisonment, including:

    • overcrowding

    • violence

    • enforced solitude

    • lack of privacy

    • lack of meaningful activity

    • social isolation

    • insecurity about future prospects

  • Financial reasons
    Reducing reoffending could significantly lower the economic burden on the criminal justice system.

How could neurointerventions be used for criminal rehabilitation?

If offenders were to be targeted with neurotechnologies, several potential applications could emerge.

Examples of possible future uses

  • tDCS to reduce aggression

  • DBS (Deep Brain Stimulation) to improve impulse control, address antisocial spectrum disorders, or reduce sexual drive

A form of neurointervention is already in use today: chemical castration.
In some U.S. states, as well as Poland, and potentially the UK, sex offenders may receive testosterone-lowering drugs as part of their sentence or as a condition of parole.

Are we not premature in debating neurointerventions for criminal offenders?

Science needs ethical reflection to guide its development.
Therefore, discussing neurointerventions—even if the technology is still developing—is important.

Ethical issues

1. Safety

Different neurointerventions vary in safety:

  • More invasive neurotechnologies generally pose greater risks and have more side effects.

  • Even among non-invasive approaches, some (like DBS) carry higher risks.

2. Rights of criminal offenders

All people—including offenders—have certain rights that must not be violated.
However, in criminal justice contexts, some minor infringements of rights are often considered acceptable to protect society or support rehabilitation.

Key rights potentially affected include:

  • Autonomy
    (To be expanded: how neurointerventions may interfere with free choice, decision-making, or bodily integrity.)

  • Depends on how you see it can help it or not

Mental Integrity

Neurointerventions may interfere with an offender’s right to mental integrity, meaning the right not to have one’s mind manipulated or influenced without consent.

Traditional punishments typically affect the offender’s body (e.g., imprisonment, physical restrictions).
Neurointerventions, however, aim to change mental states and behaviors, and therefore primarily target the mind.

But this raises an important question: How do we define the mind, and what counts as mental interference?

Personal Identity

Neurointerventions might also influence an offender’s psychological continuity, potentially altering aspects of their personal identity.

Personal identity refers to what makes someone the same person over time, despite changes in behavior, preferences, or experiences.

Why is interference with personal identity problematic?

If neurointerventions significantly alter an offender’s personal identity, several concerns arise:

  • Moral responsibility:
    Can we still justifiably hold the offender responsible for their past crimes if the intervention changes who they are?

  • Responsibility for specific crimes:
    For example, responsibility for past sexual offenses or violent crimes may become harder to assess if the individual’s identity is substantially different afterward.

These questions challenge the moral and legal basis of punishment.

Should offenders have a choice about undergoing a neurointervention?

There are several possible models:

1. Neurointerventions offered in addition to a prison sentence

Neurotechnologies might be offered as an extra tool for rehabilitation, not as a replacement for punishment.

2. Neurointerventions offered in exchange for a reduced prison sentence

In this model, offenders must provide informed consent, similar to other medical interventions.
However, this raises a key issue:
Can consent truly be free and voluntary within a criminal justice setting?
The pressure of wanting to avoid longer incarceration may undermine the freedom of the choice.

3. Neurotechnologies mandated as part of the sentence

Here, no informed consent is required.
However, this approach bypasses the offender’s autonomy and therefore violates it.

presence of mental illness

  • presence of mental illness might make a moral differce

  • in case of a daignosis an intervention into the mind

Direct vs indirect effect on the mind

  • some argue there is a difence between in direct effect on the mind and idrect effcts on the mind

However other deny that this deiifence is morally relevant

Side effets should be minimized

individual rithts of offenders may be infinged

What might be soeintal implicaions be of implementing neuro interventions in cirminal justice?

implementing neurointercentions in crimnial justince might promote the idea that we can jjust eliniate criminal behavior by zapping the vrina

this might prote views of

  • neuroessentialism

    • can act more criminally bc they think they could do otherwise

On the other hand also mabny porental benefist for society

  • less reoffendings

  • cost

  • etc

Bigger debate : moral bioenchancemnt

  • neurointervaention

Moral bioenchancement

should we use neurothec to morally enhance criminal offenders?

pusnishet or rehabilitations

wheter governments will implements neurointerventions will depand o ntheir justificaion for punishment

two main penal thories