Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Augmenting Autonomy Through Neurotechnological Intervention à la Kant: Paradox or Possibility?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Neurotechnology meets Artificial Intelligence

Part of the book series: Advances in Neuroethics ((AIN))

  • 771 Accesses

Abstract

The era of human-machine integration, offering a vast scope for augmenting our capacities as persons, simultaneously threatens to diminish them. This chapter examines the metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical implications for the autonomous agency of persons with respect to human-machine integration through brain-computer interfacing (BCI). The aim is to assess the possibility of integrating a person via a neurotechnological mechanism, such as BCI, for the purpose of enhancing their autonomous agency. Given the externality of the components of BCI and the need for autonomous agency to be unaffected by factors external to the self in order to constitute an authentic form of self-legislation, the objective of augmenting autonomy in this way seems hopelessly paradoxical. Operating within a broadly Kantian framework, however, there is much scope for extending the notion of the self to accommodate a form of self-legislation that includes the function of the BCI components. Only in this way, I maintain, can the prospect of augmenting autonomy through BCI avoid the threat of paradox.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Müller S, Walter H. Reviewing autonomy: implications of the neurosciences and the free will debate for the principle of respect for the patient’s autonomy. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2010;19:205–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Glannon G. Neuromodulation, agency and autonomy. Brain Topogr. 2014;27:46–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clausen J. Bonding brains to machines: ethical implications of electroceuticals for the human brain. Neuroethics. 2013;6:429–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Clausen J. Ethical implications of brain-computer interfacing. In: Clausen J, Levy N, editors. Handbook of neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. p. 699–704.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Mattia D, Tamburrini G. Ethical issues in brain-computer interface research and systems for motor control. In: Clausen J, Levy N, editors. Handbook of neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. p. 725–40.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Haselager P, Did I do that? Brain-computer interfacing and the sense of agency. Mind Mach. 2013;23:405–18.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lucivero F, Tamburrini G. Ethical monitoring of brain-machine interfaces a note on personal identity and autonomy. AI Soc. 2008;22:449–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Levy N. Autonomy & addiction. Can J Philos. 2006;36:427–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Frankfurt H. The importance of what we care about. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Dworkin G. The concept of autonomy. Grazer philosophische studien. 1981;12/13:203–13.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Christman J. Autonomy and personal history. Can J Philos. 1999;21:1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mele A. Autonomous agents: from self-control to autonomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fischer J, Ravizza M. Responsibility and control: a theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Hume D. In: Selby-Bigge LA, editor. A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press; 1896.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kant I. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. In: Guyer P, Wood AW, editors. The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Earp BD, Douglas T, Savulescu J. Moral neuroenhancement. In: Johnson LSM, Rommelfanger KS, editors. The Routledge handbook of neuroethics. New York: Routledge; 2017. p. 166–84.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Inwagen P. An essay on free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kane R. Free will and values. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pereboom D. Living without free will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Levy N. Neuroethics: ethics and the sciences of the mind. Philos Compass. 2009;4:69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hill T. Kantian autonomy and contemporary ideas of autonomy. In: Sensen O, editor. Kant on moral autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. p. 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kant I. Critique of practical reason. In: Guyer P, Wood AW, editors. The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chisholm R. Freedom and action. In: Lehrer K, editor. Freedom and determinism. New York: Random House; 1970. p. 11–40.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Taylor R. Action and purpose. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Publishing; 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  25. O’Connor T. Agent causation. In: O’Connor T, editor. Agents, causes, and events: essays on indeterminism and free will. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Schaefer GO, Kahane G, Savulescu J. Autonomy and enhancement. Neuroethics. 2014;7:123–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shook JR. Neuroethics and the possible types of moral enhancement. AJOB Neurosci. 2012;3(4):3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Burwell S, Sample M, Racine E. Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: a scoping review. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schaefer GO. Direct vs indirect moral enhancement. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2015;25:261–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wilks AF. Kantian challenges for the bioenhancement of moral autonomy. In: Hausekeller M, Coyne L, editors. Moral enhancement: critical perspectives, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018. p. 121–43.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Clausen J, Fetz E, Donoghue J, Ushiba J, Spörhase U, Chandler J, Niels Birbaumer and Surjo R. Soakader. Help, hope, and hype: ethical dimensions of neuroprosthetics. Science [Internet]. 2017;356:1338–9. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1338.

  32. Bratman M. Reflection, planning, and temporally extended agency. Philos Rev. 2000;109:35–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nidditch PH, editor. John Locke: An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Shoemaker S. Personal identity. Hoboken: Blackwell; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Parfit D. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1986.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Tamburrini G. Brain to computer communication: ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics. 2009;2:137–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dennett D. Content and consciousness. London: Routledge; 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hornsby J. Personal and sub-personal: a defense of Dennett’s early distinction. Philos Explor. 2000;3(1):6–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Aristotle. Nicomachean ethics. In: Barnes J, editor. The complete works of Aristotle. The revised Oxford translation, vol. 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1984. p. 1808–25.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Korsgaard C. Self-constitution: agency, identity, and integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Clausen J. Conceptual and ethical issues with brain-hardware interfaces. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2011;24:495–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chalmers D, Clark A. The extended mind. Analysis. 1998;58:7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wolkenstein A, Jox RJ, Friedrich O. Brain-computer interfaces: lessons to be learned from the ethics of algorithms. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2018;27:635–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kant I. Critique of pure reason. In: Guyer P, Wood AW, editors. The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Longuenesse B. I, me, mine: back to Kant, and back again. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Descartes R. Meditations on first philosophy. Cress DA, translator, editor. Hackett: Indianapolis; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ameriks K. Kant and the fate of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Levy N. Rethinking neuroethics in the light of the extended mind thesis. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7:3–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Adams F, Aizawa K. Defending the bounds of cognition. In: Menary R, editor. The extended mind. Cambridge: MIT press; 2010. p. 67–80.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Kaplan DM. How to demarcate the boundaries of cognition. Biol Philos. 2012;27:545–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Giubilini A, Savulescu J. The artificial moral advisor: the “ideal observer” meets artificial intelligence. Philos Technol. 2018;31:169–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kant I. Metaphysics of morals. In: Guyer P, Wood AW, editors. The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Acadia University, Wolfville, NS, Canada

    Anna Frammartino Wilks

Authors
  1. Anna Frammartino Wilks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Frammartino Wilks .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Philosophy, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

    Orsolya Friedrich

  2. Institute of Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) München, Munich, Germany

    Andreas Wolkenstein

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Christoph Bublitz

  4. Institute of Humanities in Medicine and Clinical Ethics Unit, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Ralf J. Jox

  5. University of Montreal and McGill University, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Eric Racine

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wilks, A.F. (2021). Augmenting Autonomy Through Neurotechnological Intervention à la Kant: Paradox or Possibility?. In: Friedrich, O., Wolkenstein, A., Bublitz, C., Jox, R.J., Racine, E. (eds) Clinical Neurotechnology meets Artificial Intelligence. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64590-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64590-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-64589-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-64590-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation