Moreno, JD.
From the dust jacket of Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense (a book investigating military applications of brain neural interface): Moreno takes us on an exciting journey exploring the fascinating, formidable and frightening questions for social ethics and public policy.
Page 176:
[I]n dealing with emerging neuroethical dilemmas in the national security context we can learn from previous ethical quandaries, especially in terms of the conditions under which we have those discussions. I also agree that in many cases, the ethically acceptable course of action will be a matter of weighing and balancing rather than appeal to an overarching moral doctrine, although basic guidance from some principles is going to be needed.
For instance, a number of the scientists, lawyers, ethicists, and advocates with whom I spoke in writing this book agreed that there had to be vigorous protection of at least one nonnegotiable premise when considering the appropriate security applications of neuroscience. In the law, this principle might be expressed in terms of the protection afforded in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution regarding self-incrimination: “to be a witness against himself.” Philosophically, this can be expressed as the proposition that no one else should be able to decide what goes into my brain or who “reads” it.
Those who exact milieu control within Christian groups by vilification of their critics and concealment of fact seem to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to decide what goes into the brains of their followers.
The secular world demands a high ethical standard in these matters.
How can such an ethical standard of accountability be expected from the secular world
if Christ’s Church cannot model it for secular society
within the context and realm of our own Christian subgroup?
