The problem of moral obligation to preserve or erase memories in trauma treatment

TL;DR

The paper explores whether people have a moral duty to keep or erase traumatic memories using new brain treatments.

Contribution

It argues that memory erasure can be morally acceptable as it honors obligations to one's past, present, and future self.

Findings

Deontological ethics and rule consequentialism fail to justify an obligation to preserve traumatic memories.

Memory erasure is a transformative experience that involves decision-making under uncertainty.

Trauma survivors may morally justify using memory erasure technologies to honor their selves across time.

Abstract

People who have experienced traumatic events often suffer from the burden of painful memories. Recent advances in neuropharmaceuticals and neurotechnologies have enabled the modification and even erasure of traumatic memories, raising both therapeutic hopes and ethical concerns. One view argues that individuals have a moral obligation to preserve traumatic memories; therefore, erasing such memories amounts to an evasion of moral obligations and is therefore unacceptable. However, neither deontological ethics nor rule consequentialism can justify the claim that patients have an obligation to preserve their traumatic memories. In fact, memory erasure, as a transformative experience, situates individuals within a context of decision-making under uncertainty, thereby highlighting their moral obligations to themselves. Trauma survivors may seek memory erasure technologies as a way of honoring their moral obligations to their past, present, and future selves. In this sense, such interventions may be regarded as morally permissible.