Cover Image
QR Code

Rationally Navigating Subjective Preferences in Memory Modification.

Discussion of the ethics of memory modification technologies (MMTs) has often focused on questions about the limits of their permissibility. In the current paper, I focus primarily on a different issue: when (if ever) is it rational to prefer MMTs to alternative interventions? My conclusion is that...

Full description

Published in:Journal of Medicine & Philosophy Vol. 47; no. 3; pp. 424 - 443
Main Author: Vukov, Joseph M
Format: Journal Article
Published: Oxford University Press / USA Jun2022
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=158364699&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 158364699
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        03605310
        MPS
      jtl: Journal of Medicine & Philosophy
      issn: 03605310
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2022
      vid: 47
      iid: 3
      pid: 622
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        158364699
        158364699
        NLM35640023
        10.1093/jmp/jhac006
        NLM35640023
        158364699
      ppf: 424
      ppct: 19
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
              db: hlh
              ui: 158364699
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              db: hlh
              ui: 158364699
      tig:
        atl: Rationally Navigating Subjective Preferences in Memory Modification.
      aug:
        au: Vukov, Joseph M
        affil: Loyola University , Chicago, Illinois , USA
      sug:
      ab: Discussion of the ethics of memory modification technologies (MMTs) has often focused on questions about the limits of their permissibility. In the current paper, I focus primarily on a different issue: when (if ever) is it rational to prefer MMTs to alternative interventions? My conclusion is that these conditions are rare. The reason stems from considerations of autonomy. When compared with other interventions, MMTs do a particularly poor job at promoting the autonomy of their users. If this conclusion is true, moreover, it provides a fresh perspective on debates about the permissibility of MMTs. On the one hand, for those who would limit the use of MMTs to a narrow range of circumstances, the conclusion that MMTs are rarely preferable gives them further reason to eye MMTs with suspicion. On the other hand, for those who view MMTs as permissible in a wide range of circumstances, the conclusion may deflate their endorsement.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N