Is punishment backward? On neurointerventions and forward-looking moral responsibility.

Abstract

This article focuses on justified responses to "immoral" behavior and crimes committed by patients undergoing neuromodulation therapies. Such patients could be held morally responsible in the basic desert sense-the one that serves as a justification of severe practices such as backward-looking moral outrage, condemnation, and legal punishment-as long as they possess certain compatibilist capabilities that have traditionally served as the quintessence of free will, that is, reasons-responsiveness; attributability; answerability; the abilities to act in accordance with moral reasons, second-order volitions, or Deep Self. Recently leading compatibilist neuroethicists added the condition of not feeling alienated from desires motivating a person's action. This article argues against such attempts to determine conditions under which patients undergoing neuromodulation should be subject to negative reactive attitudes and legal punishment. Compatibilism should not be used to justify basic desert moral responsibility and legal punishment. Instead, a new way of thinking about the function of moral responsibility attribution is proposed for patients with neuromodulation. Their compatibilist capabilities should serve as important indicators for determining appropriate, forward-looking courses of action, such as quarantining and restorative treatment, to ensure the public safety and well-being of the patients.