The Need for a Progressive Neuroethics

James Giordano writes in the Practical Ethics blog:

Neuroscience is challenging previously maintained notions about the structure and function of nervous systems, the basis of consciousness, and the nature of the brain-mind-self relationship. Such developments prompt re-examination of concepts of ‘personhood,’ which forms the basis of the modern social sphere and its interpretation. Contemporary neuroscience also questions traditional socially defined ontologies, fundamental social values, conventions, norms, and the ethical responsibilities relevant to constructs of individual and/or social “good.” Moreover, neuroscientific developments are rapidly being translated into medical and social contexts in the present, not at some unforeseen point in the future.

These developments give rise to a number of pressing questions: are attempt at and strivings toward “liberation technologies” fundamental to human nature as an iterative engagement of biological, social, and machine-use tendencies, or do such activities portend a “transhumanist” trajectory that use neuroscience to engineer a novel being that is distinct from extant concepts of humanity? Irrespective of whether inherent to human nature of representative of a trend toward some transhuman design, might neuroscience (and neurotechnology) afford – and perhaps enable – a more inclusive idea (and ideal) of the human being, that overcomes biological (e.g. gender and ethnicity) and cultural distinctions by revealing a common basis and concept of consciousness and self, and in this way advance a new social reality? Will neuroscience expose the human being as “merely” another social animal among other species of social animals, and in so doing dispel anthropocentric notions of elitism? Can neuroscience – and its technological products – benefit the greater social good by creating a new more cohesive vision of humans, humanity, and perhaps other sentient creatures (e.g. animals and sentient machines) that reconciles long-held distinctions between mankind, nature, organic, and inorganic beings? How – and in what directions – will neuroscience and neurotechnology compel change in the construct, scope, and conduct of medicine as profession, practice, and commercial enterprise within a technophilic and market-driven world culture? And last, but certainly not least, how much the trajectories of neuroscience and neurotechnology evoke positively and/or negatively valent outcomes for the open societies of the 21^st century?

~ more... ~