In David Birks & Thomas Douglas (eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming)

Authors
Thomas Douglas
Oxford University
Abstract
Interventions that modify a person’s motivations through chemically or physically influencing the brain seem morally objectionable, at least when they are performed nonconsensually. This chapter raises a puzzle for attempts to explain their objectionability. It first seeks to show that the objectionability of such interventions must be explained at least in part by reference to the sort of mental interference that they involve. It then argues that it is difficult to furnish an explanation of this sort. The difficulty is that these interventions seem no more objectionable, in terms of the kind of mental interference that they involve, than certain forms of environmental influence that many would regard as morally innocuous. The argument proceeds by comparing a particular neurointervention with a comparable environmental intervention. The author argues, first, that the two dominant explanations for the objectionability of the neurointervention apply equally to the environmental intervention, and second, that the descriptive difference between the environmental intervention and the neurointervention that most plausibly grounds the putative moral difference in fact fails to do so. The author concludes by presenting a trilemma that falls out of the argument.
Keywords nudges  nudging  neurointerventions  neurocorrectives  prisoners  mental interference  mental integrity  mind control
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
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

The Deontological Conception of Epistemic Justification.William Alston - 1988 - Philosophical Perspectives 2:257-299.
Doxastic Compatibilism and the Ethics of Belief.Sharon Ryan - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 114 (1-2):47-79.
Deciding to Believe.Carl Ginet - 2001 - In Matthias Steup (ed.), Knowledge, Truth and Duty. Oxford University Press. pp. 63-76.
Direct Brain Interventions and Responsibility Enhancement.Elizabeth Shaw - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):1-20.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Autonomy, Rationality, and Contemporary Bioethics.Jonathan Pugh - 2020 - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Autonomy, Nudging and Post-Truth Politics.Geoff Keeling - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (10):721-722.
Obsessions, Compulsions, and Free Will.Walter Glannon - 2012 - Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 19 (4):333-337.
Mental Action and Causalism.Jing Zhu - 2007 - Journal of Mind and Behavior 28 (2):89.
Mental Illness, Philosophy Of.Erick Ramirez - 2014 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What Can Neuroscience Contribute to the Debate Over Nudging?Gidon Felsen & Peter B. Reiner - 2015 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3):469-479.
Focused Daydreaming and Mind-Wandering.Fabian Dorsch - 2015 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (4):791-813.
Shifting the Concept of Nudge.Brynn F. Welch - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):497-498.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-03-12

Total views
79 ( #116,076 of 2,326,083 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #50,772 of 2,326,083 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes