Dr. José Manuel Muñoz is a philosopher and biologist who explores, among other topics, the ethical implications of neurotechnology and recent regulatory efforts. During his visit to NEBA, he focused on a recent article co-authored with José Marinaro, “Neurorights as reconceptualized human rights.” Below are his answers to our two questions.
What is problematic about rights inflation?
The risk of rights inflation arises mainly from failing to distinguish between human interests and moral rights on a universal scale. Ideally, human rights should correspond to fundamental human interests rather than to morally desirable values. If every value or moral right at a given time becomes a human right, human-rights documents risk not being taken seriously. They may be seen as diffuse or subject to temporality, rather than as they were conceived: a timeless legacy consisting of rights almost “carved in stone,” to the extent that they are inherent to human nature and dignity itself.
This does not mean that rights cannot be reformed or even expanded, but that such changes must be deeply studied and reflected upon. They should not be taken lightly.
Are all proposed neurorights on equal terms for reconceptualization?
In principle, yes. Freedom of thought, privacy, integrity, equal opportunity, and non-discrimination are all rights that can be reconceptualized to include the protections contained in neurorights proposals.
The possible exception is personal identity. It is not clear that this proposed neuroright could be integrated into the right to legal personality, since the concept of identity is diffuse and may refer to cultural, sexual, ethnic, and other forms of identity. Within philosophy of law, much remains to be done in relation to the notion of identity.