Abstract
This article delves into the implications of neurotechnologies for the philosophical debates surrounding free will and moral responsibility. Tracing the concept from ancient religious and philosophical roots, we discuss how recent neurotechnological advancements (e.g. optogenetics, fMRI and machine learning, predictive diagnostics, et al.) challenge traditional notions of autonomy. Although neurotechnologies aim to enhance autonomy in the strict sense – as self-determination – they risk reducing or changing the broader notion of autonomy, which involves personal authenticity. We also submit that, in a world with an altered or limited concept of free will, humans should still be held accountable for actions executed through their bodies. By examining the dynamic between choice and responsibility, we emphasize the shift in technology ethics, moral philosophy, and the broader legal landscape in response to the advancement of neurotechnologies. By bringing the neurotechnological innovations into the world, neuroscientists not only change the technological landscape but also partake in long-standing moral narratives about freedom, justice, and responsibility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
In this article, we do not analyze or generate any datasets, because our work proceeds within a theoretical and ethical approach.
References
Adomaitis, L., Grinbaum, A., & Lenzi, D. (2022). D2.2 identification and specification of potential ethical issues and impacts and analysis of ethical issues. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7619852.
Arendt, H. (2013). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Cress.
Atlan, H. (2018). Cours De Philosophie Biologique et cognitiviste: Spinoza et la biologie actuelle. Odile Jacob.
Atlan, H. (2010). The sparks of randomness, volume 1: Spermatic knowledge. Trans.). Stanford University Press. L. Schramm.
Bauman, Z. (2013). Modernity and the Holocaust. Wiley.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Bellaver, B., Ferrari-Souza, J. P., Ros, L. U., da, Carter, S. F., Rodriguez-Vieitez, E., Nordberg, A., Pellerin, L., Rosa-Neto, P., Leffa, D. T., & Zimmer, E. R. (2021). Astrocyte biomarkers in Alzheimer Disease: A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Neurology, 96(24), e2944–e2955. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000012109.
Bublitz, C., Wolkenstein, A., Jox, R. J., & Friedrich, O. (2019). Legal liabilities of BCI-users: Responsibility gaps at the intersection of mind and machine? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 65, 101399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.10.002.
Bula, G. (2019). Passions, consciousness, and the Rosetta Stone: Spinoza and embodied, extended, and affective cognition. Adaptive Behavior, 27(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712318790739.
Busso, D. S., & Pollack, C. (2015). No brain left behind: Consequences of neuroscience discourse for education. Learning Media and Technology, 40(2), 168–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.908908.
Charland, P., & Dion, J. S. (2018). L’utilisation De données psychophysiologiques pour mieux comprendre l’apprentissage en temps réel: Le fragile équilibre entre la validité des données et l’authenticité des contextes de collecte de données. Neuroeducation, 5(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.24046/neuroed.20180501.1.
Damasio, A. R. (2005). Spinoza avait raison: Joie et tristesse, le cerveau des émotions. Odile Jacob.
de Spinoza, B. (2018). Spinoza: Ethics: Demonstrated in geometric order. Cambridge University Press.
De Vos, J. (2016). The death and the resurrection of (psy)critique: The case of Neuroeducation. Foundations of Science, 21(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-014-9369-8.
Dias, B. G., Banerjee, S. B., Goodman, J. V., & Ressler, K. J. (2013). Towards new approaches to disorders of fear and anxiety. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(3), 346–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.01.013.
Draaisma, L. R., Wessel, M. J., & Hummel, F. C. (2020). Neurotechnologies as tools for cognitive rehabilitation in stroke patients. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 20(12), 1249–1261. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2020.1820324.
Dupuy, J. P. (2012). The precautionary principle and enlightened doomsaying. Revue De métaphysique et de Morale, 76(4), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.3917/rmm.124.0577.
Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s empire. Harvard University Press.
Farahany, N. A. (2023). The battle for your brain: Defending the right to think freely in the age of Neurotechnology. St. Martin’s.
Fileva, I., & Tresan, J. (2015). Will retributivism die and will neuroscience kill it? Cognitive Systems Research, 34–35, 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.07.005.
Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of Moral responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
Friedrich, O., Racine, E., & Steinert, S. (2021). An analysis of the impact of brain-computer interfaces on autonomy. Neuroethics, 14, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9364-9.
Ganis, G. (2018). Lying and Neuroscience. In The Oxford Handbook of Lying. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198736578.013.35.
Geddes, L. (2016). First paralysed person to be reanimated offers neuroscience insights. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19749.
Gilbert, F. (2012). The burden of normality: From chronically ill to symptom free. New ethical challenges for deep brain stimulation postoperative treatment. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(7), 408–412. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100044.
Gilbert, F., O’Brien, T., & Cook, M. (2018). The effects of closed-loop brain implants on autonomy and deliberation: What are the risks of being kept in the loop? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 27, 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180117000640.
Gilbert, F., Viaña, J. N. M., & Ineichen, C. (2021). Deflating the “DBS causes personality changes” bubble. Neuroethics, 14(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9373-8
Goering, S., Klein, E., Specker Sullivan, L., Wexler, A., Agüera y Arcas, B., Bi, G., Carmena, J. M., Fins, J. J., Friesen, P., Gallant, J., Huggins, J. E., Kellmeyer, P., Marblestone, A., Mitchell, C., Parens, E., Pham, M., Rubel, A., Sadato, N., Teicher, M., & Yuste, R. (2021). Recommendations for responsible development and application of Neurotechnologies. Neuroethics, 14(3), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09468-6.
Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences, 359(1451), 1775–1785. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1546.
Grinbaum, A., & Groves, C. (2013). What is responsible about responsible innovation? Understanding the ethical issues. Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, 119–142.
Hampel, H., O’Bryant, S. E., Molinuevo, J. L., Zetterberg, H., Masters, C. L., Lista, S., Kiddle, S. J., Batrla, R., & Blennow, K. (2018). Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer disease: Mapping the road to the clinic. Nature Reviews Neurology, 14(11). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-018-0079-7.
Haselager, P. (2013). Did I do that? Brain–computer interfacing and the sense of Agency. Minds and Machines, 23(3), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-012-9298-7.
Haubensak, W., Kunwar, P., Cai, H., Ciocchi, S., Wall, N., Ponnusamy, R., Biag, J., Dong, H. W., Deisseroth, K., Callaway, E. M., Fanselow, M. S., Lüthi, A., & Anderson, D. J. (2010). Genetic dissection of an amygdala microcircuit that gates conditioned fear. Nature, 468(7321), 270–276. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09553.
Hommel, B., Brown, S. B. R. E., & Nattkemper, D. (2016). Human Action Control: From intentions to movements. Springer.
Jasnow, A. M., Ehrlich, D. E., Choi, D. C., Dabrowska, J., Bowers, M. E., McCullough, K. M., Rainnie, D. G., & Ressler, K. J. (2013). Thy1-Expressing neurons in the Basolateral Amygdala May Mediate Fear Inhibition. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(25), 10396–10404. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5539-12.2013.
Johansen, J. P., Hamanaka, H., Monfils, M. H., Behnia, R., Deisseroth, K., Blair, H. T., & LeDoux, J. E. (2010). Optical activation of lateral amygdala pyramidal cells instructs associative fear learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(28), 12692–12697. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002418107.
Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 106(Pt 3), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/106.3.623.
Ligthart, S. (2022). Coercive brain-reading in criminal justice: An analysis of European Human rights Law. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009252447.
Lowe, E. J. (2008). Personal Agency: The metaphysics of mind and action. OUP Oxford.
MacIntyre, A. (2007). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, Third Edition. University of Notre Dame Pess.
Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1.
Nagel, T. (1989). The View from nowhere. Oxford University Press.
Nishimoto, S., Vu, A. T., Naselaris, T., Benjamini, Y., Yu, B., & Gallant, J. L. (2011). Reconstructing visual experiences from Brain Activity evoked by natural movies. Current Biology, 21(19), 1641–1646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.031.
Reagan, R. (1994, November 5). Reagan’s Letter Announcing his Alzheimer’s Diagnosis. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/reagans/ronald-reagan/reagans-letter-announcing-his-alzheimers-diagnosis.
Resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, P8_TA (2017). 0051 (2017). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0051_EN.html.
Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron, 35(1), 21–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00763-8.
Schönau, A. (2021). The spectrum of responsibility ascription for end users of Neurotechnologies. Neuroethics, 14(3), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09460-0.
Strawson, P. (1962). Freedom and Resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy, 48, 187–211.
Tang, J., LeBel, A., Jain, S., & Huth, A. G. (2023). Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings. Nature Neuroscience, 26(5), 858–866. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-023-01304-9.
Vázquez-Guardado, A., Yang, Y., Bandodkar, A. J., & Rogers, J. A. (2020). Recent advances in neurotechnologies with broad potential for neuroscience research. Nature Neuroscience, 23(12). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-00739-8.
Williamson, B. (2019). Brain Data: Scanning, scraping and sculpting the Plastic Learning Brain through Neurotechnology. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0008-5.
Wolf, S. (1993). Freedom within reason. Oxford University Press.
Wolman, D. (2012). The split brain: A tale of two halves. Nature, 483(7389), 260–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/483260a.
Zuk, P., & Lázaro-Muñoz, G. (2021). DBS and Autonomy: Clarifying the role of theoretical neuroethics. Neuroethics, 14, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09417-4.
Funding
This research was supported through projects TechEthos (grant number 101006249) funded by the European Commission Horizon-2020 program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Section 1 was written with equal contribution. Sections 2 and 3 were conceived by Adomaitis and later edited by Grinbaum. Sections 4 and 5 were conceived by Grinbaum and later edited by Adomaitis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
No human subjects were involved in the study.
Consent to Participate
No data needing consent has been used.
Conflict of Interest
No conflict of interest to report.
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
Adomaitis, L., Grinbaum, A. Neurotechnologies, Ethics, and the Limits of Free Will. Integr. psych. behav. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-024-09830-2
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-024-09830-2