Can a Soldier Say No to an Enhancing Intervention?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Cognitive Enhancements as Autonomy-Enhancing Technologies
2.1. Brain Computer Interface (BCI)
2.2. Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS)
3. Decision-Making and Autonomy
4. Informed Consent
5. Vulnerability and Saying No
6. Can a Soldier Say No? The Special Case of Soldiers
6.1. Can a Soldier Say No to Themselves?
6.2. Can a Soldier Say No to Making Better Moral Decisions? Moral Decision-Making in a Military Context
Around the middle of last century, a small number of states acquired the power to destroy the world through detonation of nuclear weapons. This century, many more people, perhaps millions, will acquire the power to destroy life on Earth through use of biological weapons, nanotechnology, deployment of artificial intelligence, or cyberterrorism… To reduce these risks, it is imperative to pursue moral enhancement not merely by traditional means, such as education, but by genetic or other biological means. We will call this moral bioenhancement.[47]
6.3. Saying No to an Order: Ethics of Following Commands and Being in the Military
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- McKendrick, R.; Parasuraman, R.; Ayaz, H. Wearable functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS): Expanding vistas for neurocognitive augmentation. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2015, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Burwell, S.; Sample, M.; Racine, E. Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: A scoping review. BMC Med. Ethics 2017, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krishnan, A. Military Neuroscience and the Coming Age of Neurowarfare; Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Matran-Fernandez, A.; Poli, R. Towards the automated localisation of targets in rapid image-sifting by collaborative brain-computer interfaces. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0178498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Matran-Fernandez, A.; Poli, R.; Cinel, C. Collaborative Brain-Computer Interfaces for the Automatic Classification of Images. In Proceedings of the 2013 6th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER), San Diego, CA, USA, 6–8 November 2013; IEEE: San Diego, CA, USA, 2013; pp. 1096–1099. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, B.E. The Brain Computer Interface Future: Time for a Strategy; Air War College Air University Maxwell AFB: Montgomery, AL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- DARPA Next-Generation Nonsurgical Neurotechnology. Available online: https://www.darpa.mil/program/next-generation-nonsurgical-neurotechnology (accessed on 12 July 2020).
- Smalley, E. The business of brain-computer interfaces. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 978–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coffman, B.A.; Clark, V.P.; Parasuraman, R. Battery powered thought: Enhancement of attention, learning, and memory in healthy adults using transcranial direct current stimulation. NeuroImage 2014, 85, 895–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nelson, J.M.; McKinley, R.A.; McIntire, L.K.; Goodyear, C.; Walters, C. Augmenting Visual Search Performance With Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). Mil. Psychol. 2015, 27, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clark, V.P.; Coffman, B.A.; Mayer, A.R.; Weisend, M.P.; Lane, T.D.R.; Calhoun, V.D.; Raybourn, E.M.; Garcia, C.M.; Wassermann, E.M. TDCS guided using fMRI significantly accelerates learning to identify concealed objects. NeuroImage 2012, 59, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sela, T.; Kilim, A.; Lavidor, M. Transcranial alternating current stimulation increases risk-taking behavior in the balloon analog risk task. Front. Neurosci. 2012, 6, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Durantin, G.; Scannella, S.; Gateau, T.; Delorme, A.; Dehais, F. Processing Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy Signal with a Kalman Filter to Assess Working Memory during Simulated Flight. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brunoni, A.R.; Vanderhasselt, M.-A. Working memory improvement with non-invasive brain stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Cogn. 2014, 86, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aricò, P.; Borghini, G.; Di Flumeri, G.; Colosimo, A.; Pozzi, S.; Babiloni, F. A passive brain-computer interface application for the mental workload assessment on professional air traffic controllers during realistic air traffic control tasks. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 228, 295. [Google Scholar]
- McDermott, P.L.; Ries, A.J.; Plott, B.; Touryan, J.; Barnes, M.; Schweitzer, K. A Cognitive Systems Engineering Evaluation of a Tool to Aid Imagery Analysts. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2015, 59, 274–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, S.E.; Smith, G.A. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Use in Warfighting: Benefits, Risks, and Future Prospects. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- DARPA Restoring Active Memory (RAM). Available online: https://www.darpa.mil/program/restoring-active-memory (accessed on 12 July 2020).
- Hitchcock, E.M.; Warm, J.S.; Matthews, G.; Dember, W.N.; Shear, P.K.; Tripp, L.D.; Mayleben, D.W.; Parasuraman, R. Automation cueing modulates cerebral blood flow and vigilance in a simulated air traffic control task. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2003, 4, 89–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, J.T.; McKinley, R.A.; Golob, E.J.; Warm, J.S.; Parasuraman, R. Enhancing vigilance in operators with prefrontal cortex transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). NeuroImage 2014, 85, 909–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neuroscience, H. Bihemispheric Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation with Halo Neurostimulation System over Primary Motor. Cortex Enhances Fine Motor Skills Learning in a Complex Hand Configuration Task. 2016. Available online: https://www.haloneuro.com/pages/science (accessed on 3 June 2020).
- Huang, L.; Deng, Y.; Zheng, X.; Liu, Y. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation with Halo Sport Enhances Repeated Sprint Cycling and Cognitive Performance. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seck, H.H. Super SEALs: Elite Units Pursue Brain- Stimulating Technologies. Military.com, 2 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Christman, J. Autonomy In Moral And Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E.N., Ed.; 2018. Available online: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/autonomy-moral/ (accessed on 28 June 2020).
- Mackenzie, C. Critical Reflection, Self-Knowledge, and the Emotions. Philos. Explor. 2002, 5, 186–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henschke, A. Ethics in an Age of Surveillance: Personal Information and Virtual Identities; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 1–334. [Google Scholar]
- Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow, 1st ed.; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2011; p. 78. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, M. The moral Problem; Blackwell: Cambridge, MA, USA; Oxford, UK, 1994; pp. 1–226. [Google Scholar]
- Kennett, J.; Fine, C. Will the Real Moral Judgment Please Stand up? The Implications of Social Intuitionist Models of Cognition for Meta-Ethics and Moral Psychology. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 2009, 12, 77–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annas, G.J. Beyond Nazi War Crimes Experiments: The Voluntary Consent Requirement of the Nuremberg Code at 70. Am. J. Public Health (1971) 2018, 108, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moser, D.J.; Arndt, S.; Kanz, J.E.; Benjamin, M.L.; Bayless, J.D.; Reese, R.L.; Paulsen, J.S.; Flaum, M.A. Coercion and informed consent in research involving prisoners. Compr. Psychiatry 2004, 45, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hayes, M.O. Prisoners and autonomy: Implications for the informed consent process with vulnerable populations. J. Forensic Nurs. 2006, 2, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pont, J. Ethics in research involving prisoners. Int. J. Prison. Health 2008, 4, 184–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cummings, M. Informed Consent and Investigational New Drug Abuses in the U.S. Military. Account. Res. 2002, 9, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gordon, B.G. Vulnerability in Research: Basic Ethical Concepts and General Approach to Review. Ochsner J. 2020, 20, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Parfit, D. Reasons and Persons, Reprint with corrections, 1987 ed.; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1987; pp. 1–543. [Google Scholar]
- Parfit, D. Personal Identity. Philos. Rev. 1971, 80, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parfit, D. On “The Importance of Self-Identity”. J. Philos. 1971, 68, 683–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeGrazia, D. Human Identity And Bioethics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Forrester, M.G. What Do We Owe To Future Generations? In Persons, Animals, and Fetuses: An Essay in Practical Ethics; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 137–146. [Google Scholar]
- Golding, M.P. Obligations To Future Generations. Monist 1972, 56, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaworska, A. Advance Directives and Substitute Decision-Making. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Center for Study of Language and Information, Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Faye, J. Backward Causation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, E.N., Ed.; Summer 2018 ed. 2018. Available online: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/causation-backwards/ (accessed on 28 June 2020).
- Douglas, T. Moral Enhancement. J. Appl. Philos. 2008, 25, 228–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas, T. Moral Enhancement Via Direct Emotion Modulation: A Reply To John Harris. Bioethics 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persson, I.; Savulescu, J. The Perils Of Cognitive Enhancement And The Urgent Imperative To Enhance The Moral Character Of Humanity. J. Appl. Philos. 2008, 25, 162–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubljević, V.; Racine, E. Moral Enhancement Meets Normative and Empirical Reality: Assessing the Practical Feasibility of Moral Enhancement Neurotechnologies: Moral Enhancement Meets Normative and Empirical Reality. Bioethics 2017, 31, 338–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harris, J. Moral Enhancement and Freedom. Bioethics 2011, 25, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Persson, I.; Savulescu, J. Getting Moral Enhancement Right: The Desirability Of Moral Enhancement. Bioethics 2013, 27, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haidt, J. The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychol. Rev. 2001, 108, 814–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steenbergen, L.; Sellaro, R.; Hommel, B.; Lindenberger, U.; Kühn, S.; Colzato, L.S. “Unfocus” on foc.us: Commercial tDCS headset impairs working memory. Exp. Brain Res. 2016, 234, 637–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Voarino, N.; Dubljević, V.; Racine, E. tDCS for Memory Enhancement: Analysis of the Speculative Aspects of Ethical Issues. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2016, 10, 678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Repantis, D.; Schlattmann, P.; Laisney, O.; Heuser, I. Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacol. Res. 2010, 62, 187–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giubilini, A. Conscience. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive, 2016 ed.; Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Persson, I.; Savulescu, J. Moral Hard-Wiring and Moral Enhancement. Bioethics 2017, 31, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Persson, I.; Savulescu, J. The Duty to be Morally Enhanced. Topoi 2019, 38, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dobos, N. Ethics, Security, and the War Machine: The True Cost of the Military; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Glover, J. Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2000; 464p. [Google Scholar]
- Russell, N.J.C. Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiments: Origins and Early Evolution. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 50, 140–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blass, T. The Milgram Paradigm after 35 Years: Some Things We Now Know about Obedience to Authority. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 29, 955–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connor, J.M. Military Loyalty: A Functional Vice? Crim. Justice Ethics 2010, 29, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osiel, M.J. Obeying Orders: Atrocity, Military Discipline, and the Law Of War. Calif. Law Rev. 1998, 86, 939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobos, N. Punishing Non-Conscientious Disobedience: Is the Military a Rogue Employer? Philos. Forum 2015, 46, 105–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helgesson, G. In Defense of Broad Consent. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 2012, 21, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheehan, M. Can Broad Consent be Informed Consent? Public Health Ethics 2011, 4, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Henschke, A. Militaries and the Duty of Care to Enhanced Veterans. J. R. Army Med. Corps 2019, 165, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyce, R.M. Waiver of Consent: The Use of Pyridostigmine Bromide during The Persian Gulf War. J. Mil. Ethics 2009, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McManus, J.; Mehta, S.G.; McClinton, A.R.; De Lorenzo, R.A.; Baskin, T.W. Informed Consent and Ethical Issues in Military Medical Research. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2005, 12, 1120–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolfendale, J.; Clarke, S. Paternalism, Consent, and the Use of Experimental drugs in the Military. J. Med. Philos. 2008, 33, 337–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Strawser, B.J. Moral Predators: The Duty to Employ Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles. J. Mil. Ethics 2010, 9, 342–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robillard, M.; Strawser, B.J. The Moral Exploitation of Soldiers. Public Aff. Q. 2016, 30, 171–195. [Google Scholar]
1 | Former U.S President Barack Obama’s BRAIN Initiative is supported by National Institute of Health (NIH) and DARPA. |
2 | |
3 | We note here that in the philosophical literature, these issues are typically covered under discussions of “personal identity” rather than “numeric identity”. However, as “personal identity” is also used in non-philosophical disciplines to refer to psychological aspects of a person’s identity, we have chosen to refer to this as “numeric identity”. For more on this particular nomenclature, see Henschke [26]. |
4 | For instance, see [39]. |
5 | We also recognise here that there is perhaps an additional step required to make the claim that the T2 self has authority over the T1 self—that the future self can direct or dictate things to the present self. However, this line of argument may rely on some form of backwards causation, where the future causes present events to occur. We note here that backwards causation is a somewhat contentious concept. For more on backwards causation, see [43]. |
6 | See p. 105. |
7 | See p. 348. |
8 | As noted earlier, a somewhat Kantian approach to reason and decision-making, as well as their connection to moral decision-making. For this, we draw from the work of people like Michael Smith, or Jeanette Kennett and Cordelia Fine [28,29]. This is, in contrast, a more Humean account, like that of the social intuitionist model of moral decision-making advocated by Jonathan Haidt [50]. |
9 | In some cases, one type of cognitive function could be enhanced at the cost of another. For example, increased learning memory could come at a cost of decreased levels of automated processing. |
10 | Counter-arguments [52] indicate that concerns regarding explicit coercion and potential impact on individual autonomy and informed consent in the military are perhaps misplaced given the low prevalence of use, social acceptance, and efficacies of tDCS still yet to be explored. However, we propose that though these interventions are not widely used as yet, it does not negate exploration of potential ethical concerns should their use become more widely accepted. |
11 | We recognise that this position, that “moral reasons” can override personal beliefs, is contentious and contested. While we do not have space to cover the topic here, we suggest that one of the features of moral reasons that makes them different from non-moral reasons is that they ought to count significantly in one’s decision-making [54]. What we will say is that, given the specifics of the technologies that seem likely to be used for such enhancements, as they are currently non-invasive and potentially reversible, the argument that a soldier has a right to conscientiously object to such enhancements is weak. Like “weapon 1” versus “weapon 2” above, if the technologies do enhance moral decision-making and are not so different from using two different weapon types, the right to say no is limited at best. However, as we have taken care to note throughout the paper, there is perhaps a stronger conscientious objection argument that says “I say no to this technology, because it does not actually enhance moral decision-making.” |
12 | We note here that this author is not endorsing this view; rather, they are describing the notion of military service as distinct from a normal job [63]. |
13 | |
14 | For more on enhancements and the duty of care to veterans, see [66]. |
15 | We are thinking here of a parallel argument that remote weapons like drones should be used if, all other things being equal, these remote weapons reduce risk to one’s own soldiers [70]. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Latheef, S.; Henschke, A. Can a Soldier Say No to an Enhancing Intervention? Philosophies 2020, 5, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5030013
Latheef S, Henschke A. Can a Soldier Say No to an Enhancing Intervention? Philosophies. 2020; 5(3):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5030013
Chicago/Turabian StyleLatheef, Sahar, and Adam Henschke. 2020. "Can a Soldier Say No to an Enhancing Intervention?" Philosophies 5, no. 3: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies5030013