A new neuro brain scan that can read intenions before someone can physically act. Is it ethical?

Question

"Using the scanner, we could look around the brain for this information and read out something that from the outside there's no way you could possibly tell is in there. It's like shining a torch around, looking for writing on a wall," said John-Dylan Haynes at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany, who led the study with colleagues at University College London and Oxford University.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2009229,00.html

Answer 1

I don't think it's unethical to explore the neurology behind this. In the hands of experimentors who have real integrity and an honest intent to understand the complexity of human neurological system, and with a willing participant, I don't believe that it is unethical. I think that it can, perhaps, give us great insight to our own biophysiology...perhaps. The greater question is, how many men do you think can hold on to this capability and still maintain righteous intentions?

The use of this technology, for any reason besides understanding the science of the formation of thoughts and intentions, I think is indeed unethical.

The only other application I could see for this technology has to do with making judgements against someone for their intentions, before they're able to physically act.

Is it possible that this machine can differentiate your initial reactions and feelings, and your actual controlled behavior? Is this machine taking into account all self control?

Have you ever been mad at someone, or have had something ugly to say at them, but you didn't...instead you held all of your applied composure and became the better person??? Anyone using this machine could have found you guilty of an act by convicting you by your present thoughts or emotions. Was this judgement acurate to the actual situation?

THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNETHICAL TO COMBINE THIS MACHINE'S TECHNOLOGY WITH THE JUDGEMENT OF ANY MAN.

It would be "Minority Report" all over again.

Answer 2

I think the question of ethics comes into play far too much in the medical science field. Be it stem cells, cloning, and so on. I think what the question should be is that of necessity in furthering ourselves in medical science to improve our lifespan and quality, not ethics, religion, or anything else.

It's prioritizing subjective above objective. Could it be seen as unethical? Yes. Blasphemy? Yes. Immoral? Yes. But could the opposite be true? Of course. But will this beyond any reasonable doubt advance our medical knowledge and open new doors? Absolutely. Could that be seen another way? No, because that's exactly what it's doing.

Is it unethical? It's just as unethical as interrogating somebody, and in fact, perhaps a bit more ethical. If someone is crime free and doesn't know anything, and isn't planning any subterfuge, then perhaps they wouldn't need to be held in a cell, or worse, deal with interrogation or elsewhere, perhaps worse.

I mean, are lie detector tests unethical? You could see it that way, but they are rather necessary in a great many ways as well. You be the judge, I just think that the side of disregarding ethics wins again.