People Chip I Would Not

People Chip

I would not want to be chipped. That some tasks could in theory be made easier is not a compelling argument, given the costs of being chipped. Those tasks are not complicated nor unduly insecure. Thus, there is no problem that the chip would solve. The cost of the chip is to sacrifice all semblances of personal freedom and individuality, which is not desirable even for useful benefits, much less benefits that are worthless. It is not ethical for a government to ask for citizens to be chipped. A national ID card is a poor corollary, since the card is not embedded in your skin. Freedom of movement, freedom of association, and the freedom to simply exist on one's own terms would all be sacrificed with such a chip. One's relationship with one's country is not necessarily permanent, while the chip could be. It is even less ethical for a business to ask that its employees be chipped, since that relationship is temporary by its very nature. The same concerns with respect to freedom and rights would also apply. I could see proponents crafting a fear-based utilitarian narrative to defend such a suggestion -- protecting people from terrorists for example -- but the costs of such a chip would be potentially severe and the benefits spurious at best.

The most important point regarding the ethics of the chips is that liberal society is based on man's right to make decisions for himself -- that is to have the ability to opt into any facet of society, an understanding rooted in the works of philosopher's like John Locke (Tuckness, 2010). There are few instances when violating that liberty is justified. The potential scope to eliminate that liberty that such implantation chips would allow is more substantial even than the greatest invasions we have seen yet. Further, the benefits are largely hypothetical. To be subjected to the level of control that could occur with such a chip is utterly antithetical to free society and among the grossest violations of our prevailing liberal code of ethics imaginable.

Question 2. It is not unethical to install emotion recognition software without consent for two reasons. The first is that emotion recognition occurs when dealing with humans, and this is not considered unethical. That a machine is attempting to replicate this function is an accurate assessment. The machine might remember your previous emotional states, but that is true of a human being as well. As with any machine-based information gathering, it is less the gathering of the information than the subsequent storage and usage of that information that provides the greatest ethical threat. The second is that one's emotions -- or perceived emotions -- are fleeting and therefore not an integral part of one's existence. Outside knowledge of one's emotions is common and there is no precedent for attempting to gather this knowledge being unethical.