Periodic Reporting for period 2 - ProtMind (Protecting Minds: The Right to Mental Integrity and The Ethics of Arational Influence)
Período documentado: 2021-07-01 hasta 2022-12-31
Most widely accepted ways of influencing others thoughts and behaviour, such as by offering incentives, presenting information or giving arguments, work by engaging a person's rationality--her capacity to respond appropriately to reasons for or against acting a certain way, or adopting a certain attitude. By contrast, many novel forms of influence operate at a subrational level, bypassing the targeted individual’s capacity to respond to reasons. Examples include bottomless newsfeeds, randomised rewards, and other ‘persuasive’ technologies employed by online platforms and computer game designers. They also include biological interventions, such as the use of drugs, nutritional supplements or non-invasive brain stimulation to facilitate criminal rehabilitation. The ethical acceptability of such arational influence depends crucially on whether we possess a moral right to mental integrity, and, if so, what kinds of mental interference this right protects us against. Unfortunately, these questions are yet to be addressed. Though the right to bodily integrity is well-established, the possibility of a right to mental integrity has attracted little philosophical scrutiny. This makes it unclear whether novel forms of arational influence are ethically acceptable, and how our societies should respond to them.
The purposes of this project are to (1) determine whether and how a moral right to mental integrity can be established; (2) develop an account of its scope and strength; and (3) determine what forms of arational influence infringe it, and whether and when these might nevertheless be justified. The analysis will be applied to controversial novel forms of arational influence including persuasive digital technologies, salience-based nudges, treatments for childhood behavioural disorders, and biological interventions in criminal rehabilitation.
The purposes of this project are to (1) determine whether and how a moral right to mental integrity can be established; (2) develop an account of its scope and strength; and (3) determine what forms of arational influence infringe it, and whether and when these might nevertheless be justified. The analysis will be applied to controversial novel forms of arational influence including persuasive digital technologies, salience-based nudges, treatments for childhood behavioural disorders, and biological interventions in criminal rehabilitation.
Our work over the first 30 months of the project has focussed primarily on clarifying the concepts of ‘arational influence’, ‘bodily integrity’, and ‘mental integrity’; developing justifications for the existence of rights to bodily and mental integrity; and identifying some of the factors that may determine whether an arational influence infringes the right to mental integrity. We have published or had accepted for publication 17 articles or chapters on these topics, and the Principal Investigator, Thomas Douglas, also addresses them in his draft monograph, Protecting Minds, which is under contract with Oxford University Press and is around 50% complete.
More specific questions addressed in our research completed thus far have included:
- What are the most promising arguments for a right to mental integrity? We have distinguished three importantly different arguments.
- Are biological forms of arational influence invariably more morally problematic than psychological forms? We have challenged two arguments for the view that they are.
- What strategies may individuals employ to safeguard their mental integrity? We have defended the ethical acceptability of employing adblockers in some circumstances.
- What are the implications of arational influences, employed in the context of criminal justice, for an individual’s freedom of action? We have argued that there is a tension between realising the goal of criminal rehabilitation and preserving the offender’s freedom of action.
- How can our societies avoid discrimination when subjecting individuals to targeted influence on the basis that they are predicted to engage in undesirable behaviours, such as criminal offending? We have highlighted how different theories of discrimination will generate different answers to this question.
Other questions addressed in research that has been completed, but not yet published, have included:
- How should we understand the rights to bodily and mental integrity?
- What is bodily interference?
- What is mental interference?
- Is it more important to obtain informed consent for physical interventions on the body (such as injections or surgical procedures) than for psychological interventions on the mind (such as psychotherapies)?
- What determines the resistibility of an influence? Why is resistibility important? How does the resistibility of an influence relate to the effectiveness and the transparency of the influence?
More specific questions addressed in our research completed thus far have included:
- What are the most promising arguments for a right to mental integrity? We have distinguished three importantly different arguments.
- Are biological forms of arational influence invariably more morally problematic than psychological forms? We have challenged two arguments for the view that they are.
- What strategies may individuals employ to safeguard their mental integrity? We have defended the ethical acceptability of employing adblockers in some circumstances.
- What are the implications of arational influences, employed in the context of criminal justice, for an individual’s freedom of action? We have argued that there is a tension between realising the goal of criminal rehabilitation and preserving the offender’s freedom of action.
- How can our societies avoid discrimination when subjecting individuals to targeted influence on the basis that they are predicted to engage in undesirable behaviours, such as criminal offending? We have highlighted how different theories of discrimination will generate different answers to this question.
Other questions addressed in research that has been completed, but not yet published, have included:
- How should we understand the rights to bodily and mental integrity?
- What is bodily interference?
- What is mental interference?
- Is it more important to obtain informed consent for physical interventions on the body (such as injections or surgical procedures) than for psychological interventions on the mind (such as psychotherapies)?
- What determines the resistibility of an influence? Why is resistibility important? How does the resistibility of an influence relate to the effectiveness and the transparency of the influence?
In the second half of the project, we will be focussing on:
1. Addressing objections to the existence of a right to mental integrity. The most important objection holds that the existence of the right would implausibly imply that some rather mundane and widely accepted forms of influence, including some standard marketing techniques, are ethically unacceptable.
2. Precisely defining the scope of the right to mental integrity. We will do this by developing accounts of (a) when an influence counts as 'unilateral', and thus, on our view, as a mental interference; and (b) when a mental interference counts as significant.
3. Drawing out more implications of the right to mental integrity through case studies of particular forms of influence. We will focus primarily on persuasive digital technologies (such as the use of loot boxes in computer games, and microtargeted advertising on social media), and biological interventions (such as pharmaceutical treatments for behavioural disorders in children and criminal offenders).
1. Addressing objections to the existence of a right to mental integrity. The most important objection holds that the existence of the right would implausibly imply that some rather mundane and widely accepted forms of influence, including some standard marketing techniques, are ethically unacceptable.
2. Precisely defining the scope of the right to mental integrity. We will do this by developing accounts of (a) when an influence counts as 'unilateral', and thus, on our view, as a mental interference; and (b) when a mental interference counts as significant.
3. Drawing out more implications of the right to mental integrity through case studies of particular forms of influence. We will focus primarily on persuasive digital technologies (such as the use of loot boxes in computer games, and microtargeted advertising on social media), and biological interventions (such as pharmaceutical treatments for behavioural disorders in children and criminal offenders).