Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Neuroethics 1/2024

01-04-2024 | Original Paper

Dimensions of Consciousness and the Moral Status of Brain Organoids

Authors: J. Lomax Boyd, Nethanel Lipshitz

Published in: Neuroethics | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Human brain organoids (HBOs) are novel entities that may exhibit unique forms of cognitive potential. What moral status, if any, do they have? Several authors propose that consciousness may hold the answer to this question. Others identify various kinds of consciousness as crucially important for moral consideration, while leaving open the challenge of determining whether HBOs have them. This paper aims to make progress on these questions in two ways. First, it proposes a framework for thinking about the moral status of entities other than paradigmatic persons. This framework identifies four qualities that ground moral status: evaluative stance, self-directedness, agency, and other-directedness. Second, we speculate on ways in which these qualities are relevant to dimensions of conscious experience that have been, or could be, identified in nonhuman animals. We further explore how these approaches could be adapted for use in HBOs, and argue that such studies, or something similar to them, will have to be performed if we wish to have empirical indications that HBOs have consciousness of a morally significant kind. We end by proposing that in our current scientific and epistemic situation, it is too soon to attribute any moral status to HBOs, but that this might change in the future.
Footnotes
1
The term 'Greely Dilemma’ was first used, to the best of our knowledge, by Melina Antonakaki during the 2021 research retreat on the ethics of human cerebral organoids at the University of Tübingen, Germany, to describe the kinds of ethical questions that arise in responses to a broad class of human brain models.
 
2
For a different attempt at thinking of HBOs as occupying an intermediate moral status, see [10].
 
3
For a useful discussion, see Shepherd [13].
 
4
The proposed account overlaps considerably with Warren’s multicriterial view of moral status [18]. According to Warren, five features confer moral status: (1) the capacity to feel pain, (2) reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems), (3) self-motivated activity, (4) the capacity to communicate, and (5) self-awareness. However, we do not follow Warren’s exact formulation. For example, we wish to highlight that an evaluative stance that goes beyond the ability to feel pain matters to moral status and that there are morally-relevant expressions of other-orientedness that go beyond the ability to communicate. Moreover, since the ability to solve new and complex problems is exhibited also by ordinary computers (which presumably have no moral status) and simple 2D cultures of neurons [19], we do not include reasoning in our list.
 
5
From now on, whenever we speak of consciousness we speak of phenomenal consciousness.
 
6
For a similar claim, see [5, 27].
 
7
Not to be confused with p-consciousness [15], which refers to phenomenal consciousness generally.
 
8
See [37] for a comparison with other theories of consciousness (e.g. Global Workspace Theory) and [38] for critiques of IIT.
 
9
For one useful discussion, see [26].
 
Literature
6.
go back to reference DeGrazia, David. 2008. Moral status as a matter of degree? The Southern Journal of Philosophy 46: 181–198.CrossRef DeGrazia, David. 2008. Moral status as a matter of degree? The Southern Journal of Philosophy 46: 181–198.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kant, Immanuel. 2012. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary J. Gregor and Jens Timmermann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kant, Immanuel. 2012. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary J. Gregor and Jens Timmermann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
go back to reference Jaworska, Agnieszka. 2007. Caring and full moral standing. Ethics 117: 460–497.CrossRef Jaworska, Agnieszka. 2007. Caring and full moral standing. Ethics 117: 460–497.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Engel, Mylan. 2001. The mere considerability of animals. Acta Analytica 27: 89–108. Engel, Mylan. 2001. The mere considerability of animals. Acta Analytica 27: 89–108.
11.
go back to reference Gosepath, Stefan. 2015. On the (Re)construction and basic concepts of the morality of equal respect. In Do All persons have equal moral worth? On “basic equality” and equal respect and concern, ed. Uwe Steinhoff, 124–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gosepath, Stefan. 2015. On the (Re)construction and basic concepts of the morality of equal respect. In Do All persons have equal moral worth? On “basic equality” and equal respect and concern, ed. Uwe Steinhoff, 124–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
go back to reference Shepherd, Joshua. 2018. Consciousness and moral status. New York: Routledge.CrossRef Shepherd, Joshua. 2018. Consciousness and moral status. New York: Routledge.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Christiano, Thomas. 2008. The constitution of equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Christiano, Thomas. 2008. The constitution of equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Original. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Original. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
17.
go back to reference Mullin, Amy. 2011. Children and the argument from “marginal” cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14: 291–305.CrossRef Mullin, Amy. 2011. Children and the argument from “marginal” cases. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14: 291–305.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Warren, Mary Anne. 1973. On the moral and legal status of abortion. The Monist 57: 43–61.CrossRef Warren, Mary Anne. 1973. On the moral and legal status of abortion. The Monist 57: 43–61.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Peña-Guzmán, David M. 2022. When animals dream: The hidden world of animal consciousness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef Peña-Guzmán, David M. 2022. When animals dream: The hidden world of animal consciousness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
40.
44.
go back to reference Trevarthen, Anna C., Sarah Kappel, Claire Roberts, Emily M. Finnegan, Elizabeth S. Paul, Isaac Planas-Sitjà, Michael T. Mendl, and Carole Fureix. 2019. Measuring affect-related cognitive bias: Do mice in opposite affective states react differently to negative and positive stimuli? PLOS ONE 14: e0226438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226438. (Edited by Matthew Parker).CrossRef Trevarthen, Anna C., Sarah Kappel, Claire Roberts, Emily M. Finnegan, Elizabeth S. Paul, Isaac Planas-Sitjà, Michael T. Mendl, and Carole Fureix. 2019. Measuring affect-related cognitive bias: Do mice in opposite affective states react differently to negative and positive stimuli? PLOS ONE 14: e0226438. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journal.​pone.​0226438. (Edited by Matthew Parker).CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Dimensions of Consciousness and the Moral Status of Brain Organoids
Authors
J. Lomax Boyd
Nethanel Lipshitz
Publication date
01-04-2024
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Neuroethics / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 1874-5490
Electronic ISSN: 1874-5504
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-023-09538-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Neuroethics 1/2024 Go to the issue