Abstract
AbstractThis paper analyses recent calls for so called “neurorights”, suggested novel human rights whose adoption is allegedly required because of advances in neuroscience, exemplified by a proposal of the Neurorights Initiative. Advances in neuroscience and technology are indeed impressive and pose a range of challenges for the law, and some novel applications give grounds for human rights concerns. But whether addressing these concerns requires adopting novel human rights, and whether the proposed neurorights are suitable candidates, are a different matter. This paper argues that the proposed rights, as individuals and a class, should not be adopted and lobbying on their behalf should stop. The proposal tends to promote rights inflationism, is tainted by neuroexceptionalism and neuroessentialism, and lacks grounding in relevant scholarship. None of the proposed individual rights passes quality criteria debated in the field. While understandable from a moral perspective, the proposal is fundamentally flawed from a legal perspective. Rather than conjuring up novel human rights, existing rights should be further developed in face of changing societal circumstances and technological possibilities.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health,Health Policy,Neurology,Philosophy
Reference70 articles.
1. Bentham, Jeremy. 1796. Anarchical Fallacies. Reprinted in: Waldron (ed.), ‘Nonsense upon stilts’. Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights of Man (1987). Methuen.
2. Munoz, Joseph. 2019. Correspondence: Chile – the Right to Free Will needs definition. Nature 574 (7780): 634.
3. Yuste, Rafael, Sara Goering, Agüera y Arcas, Blaise, Bi Guoqiang, et al. 2017. Four Ethical Priorities for Neurotechnologies and AI. Nature 551 (7679): 159–163.
4. Yuste, Rafael. 2019. Adress to the 140th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Doha, April 2019. https://www.ipu.org/sites/default/files/documents/yuste_speech_final_0.pdf.
5. Tasioulas, John. 2011. The inflation of concepts. AEON. https://aeon.co/essays/conceptual-overreach-threatens-the-quality-of-public-reason.
Cited by
28 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献