This comment responds to Kevin Warwicks article on predictability and responsibility with respect to brain-machine interfaces (BMI) in action. It compares conventional responsibility for device use with the potential consequences of phenomenological human-machine integration which obscures the causal chain of an act. It explores two senses of responsibility: 1) when it is attributed to a person, suggesting the morally important way in which the person is a causal agent, and 2) when a person is accountable and, on the basis of fairness about rewards and sanctions, has a duty to act responsibly and accept liability. The comment suggests that, in the absence of absolute knowledge and predictability, we continue to engage in practical forms of reasoning about the responsibility for BMI-use in ways which are inclusive of uncertainties about the liability of persons versus devices and those who create them.

Editor-in-Chief: Cutter, Anthony Mark
1 Issue per year
Issues
Volume 6 (2012)
Volume 5 (2011)
Volume 3 (2009)
Volume 1 (2007)
Most Downloaded Articles
- In Support of Human Enhancement by Chan, Sarah and Harris, John
- The Ethics of Autonomous Military Robots by Borenstein, Jason
- Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers by Allhoff, Fritz/ Lin, Patrick/ Moor, James and Weckert, John
- Future Issues with Robots and Cyborgs by Warwick, Kevin
- Public Perceptions and Biobanking: What Does the Research Really Say? by Rachul, Christen/ McGuire, Amy and Caulfield, Timothy
Brain-Machine Interfaces and Personal Responsibility for Action - Maybe Not As Complicated After All
Søren Holm / Teck Chuan Voo
1University of Manchester
1University of Manchester
Citation Information: Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology. Volume 4, Issue 3, Pages –, ISSN (Online) 1941-6008, DOI: 10.2202/1941-6008.1153, January 2011
Publication History:
- Published Online:
- 2011-01-27
Keywords: brain-machine interface; intention; responsibility; liability


















Comments (0)