The Morality of BCIs

    We as human beings present a plethora of skill sets to this world. While we may offer strengths, we also display flaws and areas of improvement in the process. Because many people strive to improve in several areas, some tend to use specific substances or items to provide themselves with additional benefits and an easier pathway to attaining their goals. The substances range from a plethora of possibilities, including consuming caffeine and using performance-enhancing drugs. One system, known as brain-computer interface or BCI, involves recording and decoding brain signals from a patient, allowing that patient to perform a task despite the limitations. Like with other ability-boosting substances and systems, many arguments have formulated around the use of BCIs, questioning the fairness and morality of their use.

    With a numerous amount of perspectives in our world, there are a plethora of opinions surrounding the morality of BCIs. BCIs allow people to perform specific tasks or actions that they wouldn’t be able to in normal circumstances. For example, BCIs can allow people with specific disorders to complete tasks that their disorders would normally prevent them from accomplishing. In the article “The brain-reading devices helping paralysed people to move, talk and touch,” journalist Liam Drew portrays the development of the BCI and its impact towards people with paralysis. A man named James Johnson suffered a neck injury from an accident, which left him almost completely paralyzed below his shoulders. He was eventually introduced to researchers from Caltech, and they invited him to join a clinical trial of a BCI. By recording Johnson’s neurons in his brain and decoding his thoughts and intentions with algorithms, Johnson was able to perform various activities like moving a cursor around a computer screen by simply thinking, which he wouldn’t normally be able to do. In another article “Tapping Into the Brain to Help a Paralyzed Man Speak,” journalist Pam Belluck presents a story of another paralyzed patient who goes by Pancho, who had not been able to speak since a car crash that he sustained in 2003. By implanting electrodes into his brain, he was able to transmit signals to a computer that displayed the words that he intended to say, eventually allowing him to produce his first recognizable sentence in nearly two decades. A BCI can make a significant impact on one’s life by reducing the limitations in opportunities for one to perform various actions, like Johnson with being able to move a cursor around a computer screen and Pancho being able to communicate recognizable sentences despite their disorders. The effects of BCIs at their maximum potential can significantly alter one’s life and identity.

    Although BCIs can make a significant impact on one’s life, the effects do not make the system acceptable to everybody. Many believe that there are key aspects associated with the system that should prevent everybody from using it for their own benefit. These factors revolve around the hindrance of humanity. One of the main disadvantages that is associated with using a BCI is that although it can make positive changes to one’s habits or decisions, it can cause identity disruption, and in the process, it can strain one’s personal relationships with their loved ones. Everyone has different perspectives on what they consider to be a set of quality traits in a person, and if one loses a plethora of the traits that their loved ones liked about them, the relationships can weaken in the process. Along with identity disruption, many perceive the system to be unfair due the inequality of access and the advantages that people would receive from it. Dr. Joe Vukov recently provided a seminar based on two articles “The brain-reading devices helping paralysed people to move, talk and touch” and “Elon Musk says Neuralink's brain chip will be 'similar in complexity level to smart watches',” detailing the arguments that can be constructed regarding the advantages and disadvantages of BCIs and other related technology. In the seminar, he provided an example of a set of arguments that can be made towards the unfairness of BCIs and how it hinders humanity, explaining that not only will BCIs exacerbate already unjust systems due to the inequality of access to them, they will also provide unfair advantages. Although one can argue that BCIs can actually help humanity by helping many people’s lives become better, there are aspects in the system that can prompt people to feel differently.

    With the advantages and disadvantages of BCIs in mind, are they morally acceptable for our society? Ultimately, the morality of the use of BCIs revolves around one’s perspective on the benefits. An argument that can made from one who supports the use of BCIs is that it can allow people to transform themselves for the better, and because other technological and ability-boosting interventions aren’t normally considered morally wrong, such as caffeine, exercise, and smartphones, there is no reason to reject BCIs specifically as long as no moral difference can be established between BCIs and other interventions. An argument that can be created from one who does not support the use of BCIs is that because there is an unequal access to the system as well as unfair advantages that can be produced, it will hinder humanity in the process. Every being in this world experiences a unique set of events in their lives, which formulates unique perspectives as a result. Because of this, there is no opinion regarding the morality of the system that everyone will agree with, creating multiple arguments in the process.

References

Belluck, Pam. “Tapping into the Brain to Help a Paralyzed Man Speak.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 July 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/14/health/speech-brain-implant-computer.html.

Drew, Liam. “The Brain-Reading Devices Helping Paralysed People to Move, Talk and Touch.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 20 Apr. 2022, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01047-w.

Kay, Grace. “Elon Musk Says Neuralink's Brain Chip Will Be 'Similar in Complexity Level to Smart Watches'.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 25 Apr. 2022, https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-chip-similar-complexity-smartwatch-2022-4.