|
7.5.3. Separating thought from action and overdetermination
The God Machine is a case of overdetermination. Thus, one could ask about the
extent to which the lack of ability to do otherwise in close counterfactual worlds
should be the main concern related to the impairment in freedom. In discussing the
Rational Persuader Machine, I have argued that overdetermination and the resultant
foreknowledge about counterfactuals is less of a problem than other aspects of the
God Machine.
To consider this point further let us look at the following example of
overdetermination:
Hall’s Brain Implant.
28
Hall is a convict with a history of
violent outbursts and PTSD. He received several prison
sentences after reacting with rage and being physically violent
after a slight provocation. He has a device implanted that
monitors the activity of his brain and would interrupt the activity
in cingulate
29
when the implant detects brain markers associated
with a high level of fear or rage. He has made an all-things-
considered judgement to have the cingulate implant, as he does
not endorse his uncontrollable fits of rage on any basis (moral,
prudential or epistemic). There are some side effects, but they
are all-things-considered acceptable to Hall. The device can be
switched off completely but it requires an advance appointment
28
The development of this case has been inspired by a case of a patient with a brain injury,
who despite his best efforts to stay ‘on track’, faced repeated incarceration after violent
outbursts. An analogical case, although more rhetorical in its use of sexual urges leading to
offence, is presented in DeGrazia (2014).
29
Although psychosurgery involving creating lesions in the brain is rare, a small number of
patients with intractable aggression are currently subjected to cingulatomy or capsulotomy.
See for example: Jiménez-Ponce et al. (2011). DBS has been proposed as a treatment for
violent outbursts (Maley et al. 2010).
157
with a doctor.
30
Where previously Hall would go into rage, he
now does not. In triggering situations, he can feel increasing
anger but at some point the device kicks in and the anger
diminishes. Often but not always he notices when the device
kicks in. The device also has a display that allows him to
monitor its activity. However, Hall is free to employ other
emotion modulation mechanisms and is learning to regulate his
emotions and actions earlier on: by calming himself down,
reappraising when he notices his anger rising, noticing triggers
and exiting the triggering situation, etc. Sometimes he is
successful in regulating his emotions and averting behavioural
impacts, sometimes the device kicks in. He can practice self-
control with the assurance that he will not harm anyone in the
process, as there is a ‘safety net’ if his self-control fails.
This scenario appears to me to be significantly less problematic than the God
Machine scenario. Overdetermination undermining a person’s ability to do
otherwise seems not to be the main concern here – the difference between those
cases does not lie in the ability to do otherwise in any particular situation.
Moreover, the action of the device is direct in the sense of acting directly on the
brain.
The first difference lies in the fact that the influence of the brain implant is not
beyond moral review in the sense of offline reflection and control, although it is
beyond the agent’s control at the moment of acting. The second difference is that it
aids the agent in making the connection between her all-things-considered
judgement and actions, although this happens in a somewhat more roundabout way
than if Hall exercised self-control. The third difference (which I would like to
highlight here) is that the agent’s will is not heteronomous to the same extent as in
30
This condition found its way to the example partly to accommodate a concern raised by
Harris in the context of the God Machine related to ‘agreeing to enslave oneself,’ i.e.,
agreeing to the diminishment of freedom that cannot be revoked, and partly with an eye on
the current practice of DBS in medical contexts, in which the device can be switched off at
any time by the user. The criminal justice-related and impulsivity related use would likely
offer the ability to switch the device off but not at any point.
158
the God Machine scenario. Thus, it is not overdetermination (and thus the inability
to do otherwise) that is a main issue here.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
