Punishment as Moral Fortification and Non-Consensual Neurointerventions.

Area of Science:

• Moral Philosophy
• Neuroethics
• Punishment Theory

Background:

• The Fortificationist Theory of Punishment (FTP) posits punishment is justified by ensuring citizens can comply with duties.
• Existing theories primarily focus on enforcing compliance rather than fostering moral development.

Purpose of the Study:

• To defend and expand the Fortificationist Theory of Punishment (FTP).
• To argue that an expanded FTP justifies non-consensual neurointerventions.
• To establish the state's duty to ensure citizens' moral reliability and development.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation
• Ethical theory expansion
• Analysis of punishment justification

Main Results:

• The FTP can be expanded to include citizens' interest in developing moral powers.
• This expanded FTP implies states have a duty to foster moral reliability.
• Non-consensual neurointerventions may be permissible if they are the best means to ensure offenders fulfill fortificational duties.

Conclusions:

• An expanded Fortificationist Theory of Punishment provides a justification for state-sanctioned neurointerventions.
• States have a dual obligation: enforcing duties and promoting citizens' moral development.
• The permissibility of neurointerventions hinges on their necessity and efficacy in ensuring moral compliance.