Abstract
In a recent article, Jecker and Ko propose that a capabilities approach can be useful as an ethical framework for evaluating the use of BCI applications. Jecker and Ko defend this application, in part, because a capabilities list is not necessarily unchanging, but can account for rapid enhancements in human abilities. In this commentary, I argue that, though the capabilities approach is provisional, its primary relevance for BCI emerges from the ways in which capabilities remain constant amidst changing human abilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Coeckelbergh, M. (2011). Human development or human enhancement? A methodological reflection on capabilities and the evaluation of information technologies. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9231-9
Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. University of Chicago Press.
Jecker, N. S., & Ko, A. (2022). The unique and practical advantages of applying a capability approach to brain computer interface. Philosophy & Technology, 35(4), 101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00597-1
Nussbaum, M. (1992). Human functioning and social justice: In defense of Aristotelian essentialism. Political Theory, 20(2), 202–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591792020002002
Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability nationality species membership. Cambridge Mass: Belknap Press: An Imprint of Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ML was the sole contributor in writing and preparing this manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
The study includes no human or animal subjects that require ethical approval—ML.
Consent to Participate
The study includes no subjects who needed to give consent to participate—ML.
Consent for Publication
This study includes no human participant who needed to give consent to publish—ML.
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Lindia, M.S. Abilities, Capabilities, and Brain-Computer Interfaces: a Response to Jecker and Ko. Philos. Technol. 36, 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00600-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00600-9