Beyond the responsibility gap. Discussion note on responsibility and liability in the use of brain-computer interfaces
Graduate studies at Western
AI and Society 26 (4):377-382 (2011)
|Abstract||The article shows where the argument of responsibility-gap regarding brain-computer interfaces acquires its plausibility from, and suggests why the argument is not plausible. As a way of an explanation, a distinction between the descriptive third-person perspective and the interpretative first-person perspective is introduced. Several examples and metaphors are used to show that ascription of agency and responsibility does not, even in simple cases, require that people be in causal control of every individual detail involved in an event. Taking up the current debate on liability in BCI use, the article provides and discusses some rules that should be followed when potentially harmful BCI-based devices are brought from the laboratory into everyday life.|
|Keywords||Brain-computer interface Responsibility gap Shared control Liability Neuroethics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Antony Duff (2009). Legal and Moral Responsibility. Philosophy Compass 4 (6):978-986.
Guglielmo Tamburrini (2009). Brain to Computer Communication: Ethical Perspectives on Interaction Models. [REVIEW] Neuroethics 2 (3):137-149.
Pim Haselager (2013). Did I Do That? Brain–Computer Interfacing and the Sense of Agency. Minds and Machines 23 (3):405-418.
Michael Davis (2012). “Ain't No One Here But Us Social Forces”: Constructing the Professional Responsibility of Engineers. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1):13-34.
Joel Feinberg (1988). Responsibility for the Future. Philosophy Research Archives 14:93-113.
Bernd Carsten Stahl (2006). Responsible Computers? A Case for Ascribing Quasi-Responsibility to Computers Independent of Personhood or Agency. Ethics and Information Technology 8 (4):205-213.
Richard Heersmink (2009). Ghost in the Machine: A Philosophical Analysis of the Relationship Between Brain-Computer Interface Applications and Their Users. Dissertation, University of Twente.
Joseph Raz (2010). Responsibility and the Negligence Standard. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):1-18.
Simon Robinson (2009). The Nature of Responsibility in a Professional Setting. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1):11 - 19.
Femke Nijboer, Jens Clausen, Brendan Z. Allison & Pim Haselager (2013). The Asilomar Survey: Stakeholders' Opinions on Ethical Issues Related to Brain-Computer Interfacing. [REVIEW] Neuroethics 6 (3):541-578.
Jeremy Snyder, Valorie Crooks, Rory Johnston & Paul Kingsbury (2013). Beyond Sun, Sand, and Stitches: Assigning Responsibility for the Harms of Medical Tourism. Bioethics 27 (5):233-242.
Richard Heersmink (2011). Embodied Tools, Cognitive Tools and Brain-Computer Interfaces. Neuroethics. DOI 10.1007/S12152-011-9136-2 6 (1):207-219.
Deborah G. Johnson & Thomas M. Powers (2005). Computer Systems and Responsibility: A Normative Look at Technological Complexity. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 7 (2):99-107.
Gordon G. Sollars (2003). A Critique of Social Products Liability. Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (3):381-390.
Richard Heersmink (2011). Epistemological and Phenomenological Issues in the Use of Brain-Computer Interfaces. In C. Ess & R. Hagengruber (eds.), Proceedings of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy 2011 (pp. 98-102). MV-Wissenschaft.
Added to index2011-10-28
Total downloads12 ( #101,300 of 739,518 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 739,518 )
How can I increase my downloads?