Ethical Implications and Theories about a New Technology - Essay Example

Ethical Implications and Theories about a New Technology Introduction Society depends on science andtechnology to provide advancements to its members to improve their health, wealth, well being as well as their security (Drydyk, 1991). Of course, as scientific advances are made in the world, it also becomes important to understand their ethical impacts and effects (Lachapelle, 2005). The brain scan that can read the intentions of an individual is one such example since it raises many ethical questions for both the relativist and utilitarian view of ethics. An overview of the technology itself is necessary before an ethical debate can be undertaken on the merits of the technology. The Technology Sample (2007) reports that scientists working in the field of neurology have developed a system with which they are able to look into a person’s mind and see their intentions even before they are carried out. Essentially, it allows them to bug the mind of an individual much like a telephone can be bugged. The methodology is based on taking high resolution scans of the brain to identify the activity in certain areas of the brain which can be translated into the actual thoughts of the person. A brain image of this kind could reveal a person who is lying, having violent thoughts, has racial prejudices, or any other negative or positive emotions. While the process can be used to help in interrogation and crime solving it could easily turn into an Orwellian tool much like the thought police. Of course the brain scan could also be used to prove the innocence of an individual who has not committed a crime but the invasion of privacy and the violation of civil rights certainly bring up interesting questions. The Future of the Technology The technology is still several years away from being perfected but it is going towards a direction where hiding thoughts might be impossible. In a few years, scientists will be able to tell if an individual is lying or not simply by looking at their brain activity. In fact, we might even be able to know a person’s emotional state, background thoughts as well as their hopes and dreams with a good enough scan of their brain. The idea does have its positive applications since computers could be controlled with the brain and machinery could also be controlled with thought alone to provide the disabled with an unprecedented degree of movement. Thought controlled wheelchairs or artificial appendages could make losing an arm or a leg less debilitating than it is now. Clearly, there are both positive and negative sides to the debate on the reading of thoughts. To better grasp the situation in ethical terms, it would be useful to examine each school of thought (Relativism as well as Utilitarianism) on its own and apply the basic ideas of the school to the ethics of using the new technology. Relativism The basic definition of the idea of ethical relativism is explained by Velasquez et. al. (1992) and they say that: “Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of ones culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another (Velasquez, 1992, Pg. 1).” Clearly, such an analysis comes with the advantage of saying that we do not know what is right and wrong since we do not know how one culture will react to the presence of the thought reading machine as compared to another. A draconian police state may welcome the device and push its positive points for moving the public towards accepting the thought scanner. On the other hand, a liberal government which believes in the ideals of privacy and civil liberties may severely restrict the use of the device and may even bar the presentation of evidence gathered by this device for use in court. They might even consider the use of such a device to be a severe violation of the human rights of the person on whom the machine was used to gather thoughts and intentions. Application of Ethical Relativism Under the guidance of ethical relativism, it would be difficult to find an established common framework for handling and removing disputes concerning the use of the same device in the two countries mentioned above. The police state would probably function better in its objectives to remain a police state if they could spot rebellion or dissent from their mandates. At the same time, the liberal government could use the same tool for education, supporting the disabled and improving the lives of their citizens without feeling the need to spy on their thoughts. There is nothing wrong in technological terms with the device itself; it is only the use of the device which can be good or bad for a society. However, since that judgment of good and bad depends on the relative cultures of the societies, it is clear that under the dictates of ethical relativism, no judgments can be passed as to the ethical use of the device. Basically, if the culture of the society accepts the use as ethical then the use is ethical. In fact, the same argument can be applied to other ethical debates such as eavesdropping technology, abortion or even the use of euthanasia. Since culture governs the need and process of making things ethical or unethical, the use of the device would be ethical in whatever means it is used as long as the culture where it is being used agrees with that particular use. It may sound confusing but there is actually a very simply answer given by ethical relativists. The Ethical Relativist Answer The solution to the problem, according to the dictates of ethical relativism, is simple. The Draconian state should be allowed to use it for reading people’s thoughts while the liberal society could use it to help people live better, more fulfilling lives. The solution presented certainly has its merits because it allows individuals to use the device as they choose to. However, letting things happen as they will is not really a solution to the problem since instead of presenting an answer to the ethically important question, relativism merely pushes the debate into smaller segments within society. For example, suppose that a group of individuals within the Draconian state do not agree with the use of the device and they form a group as a subculture within the larger culture to question its use. They immediately come at odds with the government and may even be going against the larger culture which supports the use of the device. Fundamentally, they could be acting unethically by going against the very laws of their home country which are supported and created by following ethical relativism. Going further, each individual can have their own set of values and may consider one use of the device perfectly ethical and the other absolutely unethical. Groups within groups could be created until there is no comprehensible answer to the ethical questions which were asked in the first place. It seems that ethical relativism takes the easy way out by letting things happen as they will. With this theory we have been asked to live with our differences and make to as best as we can since there can be no imposition of values or ethics between cultures who differ in their outlook (LaFave, 2006). No Real Solution Ethical relativism has simply chosen to ignore a problem by saying that ethics are relative to society and universality can not be achieved through any means. In effect, this idea becomes more confrontational since it simply continues the problem or defers the solution to a more advanced generation which can communicate more affectively to resolve their individual as well as their collective differences. By not having any established universal standards, ethical relativism takes us towards a clash of ideas rather than a resolution which seeks dialogue and reconciliation. Utilitarianism In the simplest of terms, utilitarianism means usefulness for society. It is a philosophy which suggests that all of our actions should be taken while keeping the good of the people in mind. The good of the people can be happiness, pleasure or satisfaction depending on the philosopher who describes the theory but the general idea is to live in such a way so as to make life better for the people in the community (Wilson, 2006). The use of the device or any other implement for that matter would depend on the good it brings to the people. Who Decides? However, this leads us to a very severe dilemma which can be questioned in light of utilitarianism i.e. who decides what is good for the people? Of course we can say that in a democratic system, the people decide what is good for them but we also know that public opinion about things can be created, modified or changed altogether if the government of a country is strong enough (Yeatman, 2004). A police state for example, can bend public opinion to its will or simply coerce the public into towing their line by saying that the use of the device is very much in the greater good of the country. Protection of Rights We can also say that if the human rights of the individual are protected in a country then that country will do what is good for the people but there are those who disagree with that statement as well. It is also possible that no matter what individual rights are given by the government, some individuals might not be happy with the situation as reported by Mullender (2003) who says: “It would be wrong to assume that those who live in states where human rights are protected will be content with their circumstances. Some may struggle to fashion a distinct individual identity. And others may seek to give expression to an identity that cannot be accommodated in a system of law where human rights are protected (Mullender, 2003, p. 558).” In such cases, even if the use of the device is actually good for the larger public’s safety and security, those who disagree with its use for scanning thoughts will continue to protest against its use as a violation of human rights. Since utilitarianism takes pain and pleasure as the two results for any action taken by a person. Whatever brings pleasure to the greatest number of people and makes them happy is utilitarian and therefore good. Whatever brings misery or pain to the people is bad and should be avoided (Sweet, 2006). Perhaps a free and fair national referendum on the uses of the device can be used to come up with a utilitarian answer to the problem since the people will have an opportunity to decide what is good for them on a collective level. Is there Justice in it? Mill might agree with that approach whole heartedly. John Stuart Mill outlined his idea of the utilitarian philosophy in the book titled Utilitarianism. He developed and expanded the ideas presented by Bentham, Hegel and others by giving us the idea of cultural happiness and inner satisfaction as a part of what makes society happy. Mill’s philosophy differs from other utilitarian thinkers significantly since he offers an idea of justice attached to utilitarianism which balances the happiness creation principles for society. Mill’s addition of justice and doing what is just for everyone brings a new dimension to utilitarianism and makes the theory more complete (Wilson, 2006). Under this idea, the use of the device not only has to bring happiness to the people, the use must just as well. I think that this is a better answer than ethical relativism since the principles of justice are based on the ideas of knowing what is fair. Even though the world of law has progressed a long way from the first codified law tablets to present day European code of justice, the laws are still a reflection of what society wants. If the laws can be used for justice, they can be applied to the use of the thought scanner and an eventual answer as to its use can be arrived at quite easily. Undoubtedly, if utilitarian thinking leads to the use of the device to find out criminal intent and to catch those who wish harm to society, their happiness will certainly be affected negatively if their intents are exposed. However, the overall happiness of society may be increased significantly with lower rates of crime, a reduced level of stress and a better understanding of the viewpoints of other members of society. Conclusion I feel that the device itself has more benefits than disadvantages and yes I do not wish my thoughts to be exposed to everyone at all times. However, the utilitarian viewpoint certainly appeals to the logical and just use of the device for increasing the overall level of satisfaction in society. Undeniably, the loss of privacy and the threat of someone finding out a person’s deepest darkest secrets is quite a horrifying thought but under the dictates of utilitarianism, the needs of privacy and the respect for individual human rights could not be violated without just case and sufficient reason. In fact, even today the police can hold a person for questioning and they have at hand experts who can tell if an individual is hiding something or not. Similarly, there are hundreds of video cameras which are watching our every move in banks, shopping centres and even houses of worship. Our emails may be monitored by our employees as well as our usage of the internet and in fact, we are much closer if not living in the dreaded Orwellian state which was being run by Big Brother (Rodgers, 2005). However, the fact can not be ignored that such a device can be used for doing good things and improving the level of happiness in society. The idea of computers being run by thought alone and giving full mobility to individuals who have been severely paralyzed is an excellent motive for continued investment in research and development for the enhancement of the device. I feel that as long as society accepts the use of the device and that the device is used for the good of the people and to bring justice to the people there can be no objection to it. In fact, while utilitarian ideals can certainly support my position on the matter, the position is made much strong with ethical relativism since I am also culturally assured that the use of the device is ethically fine. In this way both utilitarianism and ethical relativism can be used to push for the use of the device to make the world a better place than it is. Works Cited Drydyk, J. 1991, ‘Capitalism, socialism, and civil society’, Monist, vol. 74, no. 3, p. 457-478. Lachapelle, E. 2005, ‘Morality, Ethics, and Globalization: Lessons from Kant, Hegel, Rawls, and Habermas’, Perspectives on Global Development & Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 603-644. LaFave, S. 2006, ‘Relativism’, West Valley College, [Online] Available at: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/relativ.htm Mullender, R. 2003, ‘Human Rights, and Particularism’, Journal of Law & Society, vol. 30, no. 4, p. 554-574. Rodgers, T. 2005, British, US Spying Draws Us Closer to Orwells Big Brother, [Online] Available at: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1229-35.htm Sample, I. 2007, ‘The brain scan that can read peoples intentions’, The Guardian, [Online] Available at: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329710503-117802,00.html Sweet, W. 2006, ‘Jeremy Bentham’ University of Tennessee, [Online] Available at: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/b/bentham.htm Velasquez, M. et. al. 1992, ‘Ethical Relativism’, Santa Clara University, [Online] Available at: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.html Wilson, F. 2006, ‘John Stuart Mill’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [Online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/ Yeatman , A. 2004, ‘Right, the State and the Conception of the Person’, Citizenship Studies, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 403-417. Word Count: 2,655 Read More