Add Thesis

Consider it in the long run

Essay on the Use of Neurotechnological Interventions in the Working Context

Written by Anonymous

Paper category







Essay: The following article discusses the question "In your opinion, is it morally reasonable for a company to use neurotechnology to transform employees? Why or why not?" and is based on the article by Patrick D. Hopkins and Harvey L. Fiser "This position" Need to make some changes to your brain': ethical and legal issues regarding the use of neurotechnology to transform employees" (Hopkins & Fiser, 2016). The article by Hopkins and Fiser outlines the possible impact of neurotechnical interventions in the work environment. The subject itself provides many difficulties in ethics and legislation, so it is worth studying. First, the author introduces the abilities and abilities of people who may be targets of neurotechnology. Categories include a person's physical, intellectual, social, communication, and cognitive skills, as well as a person's ability to learn specific things. In addition, other characteristics such as attitudes, beliefs, and morals are mentioned (Hopkins & Fiser, 2016, pages 1-4). Then classify and explain the different types of neurological interventions. This article distinguishes three types of neurological interventions that are or may become universal in employment; observational neurological interventions, scalable neurological interventions, and existential neurological interventions, which also include pharmacological neurological interventions. Although observational neural interventions are used to identify, hide, and predict different characteristics, scalable interventions have the ability to selectively change cognitive characteristics. The widest range of interventions that can change the combination of collective existing capabilities is existential neurological interventions (Hopkins & Fiser, 2016, pp. 4-6). Regardless of ethical and moral issues, an important factor in the use of neurological interventions is the advantages obtained and the interests of all parties involved. The author distinguishes between absolute advantage and relative advantage, that is, no matter how many people intervene, the former is beneficial, while the latter depends on the attributes of others. The different interests of employers and employees also influence the possible use of neurological interventions (Hopkins & Fiser, 2016, pp. 6-7). Based on this, Hopkins and Fiser describe how different positions of neurological intervention affect the application of various ethical principles and the arguments for or against the use of these principles. Regarding ethical principles, the legal framework for employment is being explained. By describing the most important legal framework, the article presents possible situations of how employers may require neurological interventions at work. The article also provides five different possibilities on how to modulate neurological interventions. These regulations are characterized by prohibiting, allowing or requiring neurological interventions and disclosure of their use (Hopkins & Fiser, 2016, pp. 13-15). Hopkins and Fiser provided a broad summary of relevant topics related to neurotechnical interventions, but because some of the problems solved were not well thought out or lacked a scientific basis, they must first be clarified. After that, the goal of this article is to provide a series of different arguments to answer the question of ethical legitimacy. To this end, the differences between neurological interventions will be discussed, and the basic theories of ethics and social science will be combined with practical arguments. In order to make drug interventions more practical and closer to readers, the author cited coffee as an example, as a substance that stimulates human thinking in a positive way (Hopkins & Fiser, 2016, p. 5). Although this is correct, it is worth mentioning that coffee or tea is part of human history (Krüger, 1743, p. 3; Benn, 2015, pp. 26-27). The intention of consumption is not only pure performance improvement, but also enjoyment. Coffee and tea are also used as social elements. For example, the German word "Kaffeekränzchen" stands for social gatherings around drinking coffee with friends. This does not apply to any other pharmacological interventions or commonly used psychotropic drugs described in this article, such as Adderall or Ritalin. In addition, the effects and risks of coffee and tea are well known and have been studied for longer than any other drug intervention. This is a big aspect for social acceptance, universal use and legitimacy. Therefore, the comparison between Hopkins and Fiser is improper, and there is a lack of overall research. Related to the last paragraph, the author points out that people use interventions to strengthen themselves on a voluntary basis (Hopkins & Fiser, 2016, p. 7). On its own, the statement is correct, but considering that people use such interventions, because the required performance (for example, in school, university, and employment) itself is too high, indicating that the system is flawed. Since socialization theory points out that individuals adapt to the specific values, rules, and standards of society, the “voluntary” use of performance enhancing drugs is the result of the existing elite rule (Konecny ​​& Leitner, 2000, p. 266). Read Less