temp_copy

By Kristie Garza Image courtesy of   Wikimedia Commons. Humans in the 21st century have an intimate relationship with technology. Much of our lives are spent being informed and entertained by screens. Technological advancements in science and medicine have helped and healed in ways we previously couldn’t dream of. But what unanticipated consequences of the rapid expansion into new technological territory? This question is continually being explored in the British sci-fi TV series  Black Mirror, which provides a glimpse into the not-so-distant future and warns us to be mindful of how we treat our technology and how it can affect us in return. This piece is part of a series of posts that discuss ethical issues surrounding neuro-technologies featured in the show and will compare how similar technologies are impacting us in the real world.  *SPOILER ALERT* - The following contains plot spoilers for the Netflix television series Black Mirror.  Plot Summary “White Bear” begins with Victoria

By Sunidhi Ramesh This post was written as part of a class assignment from students who took a neuroethics course with Dr. Rommelfanger in Paris of Summer 2016.  Sunidhi Ramesh, an Atlanta native, is a third year student at Emory University where she is double majoring in Sociology and Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology. She plans to pursue a career in medicine and holds a deep interest in sparking conversation and change around her, particularly in regards to pressing social matters and how education in America is both viewed and handled. In her spare time, Sunidhi is a writer, bridge player, dancer, and violinist.  In 1893, Dr. Henry Howard Holmes opened his World’s Fair Hotel to the world [1]. But what his guests did not know was that the basement was filled with jars of poison, boxes of bones, and large surgical tables. Chutes from the guest rooms existed only to slide bodies into a pile downstairs. In the few months that the hotel was open for the public, Holmes, dubbed America’s

A number of botched executions over the past 16 months have reopened national discourse  about the relevance of capital punishment in the 21 st century, which has been polarized by passage of a Utah bill reinstating use of the firing squad. As of March 2015, the United States is the lone Western power and one of only 36 nations (18%) worldwide that executes its own citizens. Some common points of contention against state-sponsored execution include, but are certainly not limited to: cases of wrongful execution; distributive injustice, whereby racial minorities are disproportionately executed; diminished mental capacity, which may limit the perpetrator’s moral discernment and decision-making abilities; and insufficient evidence of its deterrent effect on other criminals. On the other hand, death penalty supporters often speak from two conventional perspectives about punishment: (1) a consequentialist perspective – that capital punishment will protect society against that particular

In the wake of Troy Davis’ execution, we’re reminded to revisit conversations about the efficacy of our current legal system and notions of justice. Often the arguments for or against capital punishment are weighted with broader moral conversations and convictions than conversations about more specific aspects of our legal system and mechanisms of social justice. Others, like Will Campbell , say it more plainly , “Capital punishment. I just think it’s tacky.” When we ask ourselves, “Do you believe in capital punishment?” Two simple answers might come to mind: "No, killing people is wrong." and/or "I believe in 'an eye for an eye'": a (mis)interpretation of the Abrahamic Tradition by individuals who want to justify vengeance. Neither of these responses properly frames the real issues with capital punishment. Capital punishment is part of an antiquated and broken system that is heavily laden with issues of race, social resources and political strategy. These