The role of autobiographical memory is not just to relate us to our past self, but also to shape the future self of ours by helping us navigate the complex world we encounter in our every-day lives on a stable basis: some more or less vivid idea of who we really are as persons, as individual beings with distinct selves and unique identities. In this sense memory has also to do with being and becoming, and not just with having been. (...) The advances in the field of memory neuroscience have resulted in what is called memory reconsolidation, that is, techniques to suppress, modify, or enhance certain memories that have to do with our moral identity and moral status. In this presentation I will discuss certain potential implications of memory reconsolidation that are in my view of key importance for neuroethics, and especially for the debate concerning moral identity, agency and status in the brand-new landscape that has been shaped by the novel capabilities neuroscience has made available. (shrink)

While research to improve memory or counter decay caused by neurodegenerative diseases has a fairly long history, scientific attempts to erase memories are very recent. The use of non-invasive brain stimulation for memory modulation represents a new and promising application for the treatment of certain disorders [such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ]. However, numerous ethical issues are related to memory intervention. In particular, the possibility of using forms of non-invasive brain stimulation requires to distinguish treatment interventions from the enhancement of (...) the healthy. Furthermore, a range of important societal and legal concerns arise when manipulating memories. In this short contribution, we address some of the most significant ethical, social, and legal implications surrounding the application of memory-modulation techniques and offer a series of reflections and considerations, which we hope can be of use to guide -and perhaps regulate- their potential, future implementation in society. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss whether it is ever morally permissible to diminish the cognitive abilities or capacities of some cognitively gifted offenders whose ability to commit their crimes successfully relies on them possessing these abilities or capacities. I suggest that, given such cognitive diminishments may prevent such offenders from re-offending and causing others considerable harm, this provides us with at least one good moral reason in favour of employing them. After setting out more clearly what cognitive diminishment may consist (...) of, I then critically discuss variations of four plausible arguments against a proposal of using them on cognitive gifted offenders related to autonomy, harm, narrative identity, and a right to mental self-determination. I argue that none of these concerns should have us reject the use of cognitive diminishments. (shrink)