2.1 The identity formation: social process or brain empowerment

For some,¹⁰ identity is forged, based on two elements: the basis over which rest the processes and dynamics of the identity formation, which actually is “the substance” and the «essence» (also called numerical identity¹¹) of the human being, both in his bodily dimension, as well as in his spiritual one; and secondly, the plasticity (narrative identity¹²) of the same that, allows him to adapt and develop adjustment mechanisms, according to what the circumstances are dictating. In this way, the identity would be something which should depend on the essence -unique, fixed and indivisible- of the human being, which rests on it, but also the dynamic detail of his being a person, and a social being which modify him gradually according to how the person’s development itself, is in progress.

On the other hand, for others, the fixed and immovable element is disregarded, in order to put only the identity in her changing dimension; that is to say, it is declared that the human being’s Identity is not pre-fixed, but it is being built within the environment and surroundings in which this is being collocated and, with the new findings of “Neuroethics”, with various interventions that gradually are shaping it, in accordance with different interests and needs, even if, up to the point where it is altered by means of these interventions¹³.

It is something observable, -and it is since the Pre- Socratics who were asking themselves about the Identity problem in the shift from the single to the multiple,¹⁴ that all things suffer very diverse modifications constantly, and that these are precisely the ones which allow her to adapt to the environment and, as a consequence, her survival; never the less, it has been also admitted that these changes do not alter a fundamental component, which is the essence, this one understood as the universal and necessary content of things, which allows them to be, what they are in themselves, and thus, without altering the essence, changes enable them to adapt to the environment, and are given by the external influences that show up, which demand a posture or position -action or reaction- in front of them.

The same thing happens with the identity in a human being: the essence that makes him to be “a human being”, is unalterable, and precisely as a function of it, the person is gradually developing in an interweaving of social, cultural, economic, political and even environmental relationships, which are unfolding to him, different forms of being in a reality and interacting with it, but they do not force it to change its essence because of them; thus, Identity is gradually forming while the human being is becoming “affected”¹⁵ by the surroundings where it is inserted and is continually growing.¹⁶

Thus, in light of the possibility to conceive that Identity is as plastic as plastics are the interventions made on it, as it is currently declared by some neuroscience¹⁷ tendencies, there must be said that one of the direct consequences would be the fact of losing the “essential” component of the “substances”, and therefore, to conceive all reality as something subjected to the future to come, forever.

To think that Identity is something changeable and modifiable, allows us to think in the possibility, to strengthen human relations, empower skills that will allow a better development, enable survival adaptations, and an endless quantity of positive aspects; but if you lose sight, at the basis of all of it, there is a unique element of specific content which is immovable, then the enlisted possibilities themselves, would even lose the sense of being, because they would be modifying qualities that are “accidental” to the human being, and would not be modifying “the human being” as for its substance; thus, they would endure as much as certain circumstances would endure, but they would vanish as soon as these would also be modified.

Change for change’s sake, does not provide any benefit whatsoever, without a sense of orientation, an improvement is not an improvement but a chance, thus, the possibility to intervene on the structures that will enable a better adaptation to the environment, a better understanding of the social behavior, and of our interference over the surroundings, for the purpose of improving it; those would be actions that neuroscience would open, with a positive judgement and assessment, all of them, in turn, directed and internally oriented toward a container that we grant it, a reason for being strong enough, as to be thought in terms of its social consequences.¹⁸

2.2 Behavioral determinism and behavioral prediction: the prelude to fatalism

Another debate that has arisen before the findings of neuroscience, is the one that supports them by declaring that human conduct has, as a basis, an organic structure located also in the brain. If reason is given to the above mentioned proposal, then it would be necessary to also declare that the fact of acting¹⁹ -right or wrong-, -ethically or not ethically- depends on having certain brain structures, that would enable such conduct, but not only that, but also that action can be taken over the same, in order to improve or alter the expected behavior of a subject.

This aspect is crucial while thinking on ethic subject matters: what is ethics? Is one born with a natural inclination towards good, or is it learned and modified according to the individual’s experiences and of the surrounding environment? Depending on the answer, it will be or not possible to bet for minimum ethics that will enable human harmony, or else to pure and radical determinism and, therefore, the annulment of human freedom.

The Aristotelian-Thomistic theory,²⁰ states that we human beings, have a natural inclination towards good, understood this last one as everything that preserves and protects our life and our species;²¹ now, in our days this translates in what we call “conscience” that, even though it is not located physically in any place of the brain structure, informs this last one, in order to deliberate the actions that must be executed and those that it is convenient to avoid; thus, conscience is all that which warns before acting, this is to say: by natural inclination we tend towards the good, but through the conscience we decide the means to reach this point.

This conscience, in the human beings, is evolving and developing according to how the human being himself is growing and developing, and therefore, this conscience is constantly being transformed according to various factors: educational, cultural, economic, political, social, etc., in such a way that, it can gradually be fortifying itself or else weakening according to the surroundings in which the subject is being inserted. What is interesting here is that, regardless of the circumstances and of its internal dynamics, conscience, as a means of internal thinking, never gets lost, this means that we can always have the possibility to go back to her, and redirect it, because it is always present, including when it is thought that it has been lost completely.

With the above, it is wanted to consider the thinking reflection about the possibility to behave well or, in other words, of acting ethically, there always exists in the human being due to his same ontological structure, even though in fact, not always is being performed well nor ethically.

Now, in face of the above mentioned, there exists the contrary position, that is to say, the one that states that acting right or wrong, ethically or not ethically, depends on having certain brain structures, and that these would be working properly; so then, there exists a determinism which would allow some to act ethically and not to others. Furthermore, it is currently suggested the possibility to intervene in such brain zones to empower human behavior in order to what is wanted to obtain from her.²²

The above, as extraordinary as it might sound, it also implies an enormous consequence in the human person: the annulment of his freedom.

The argument is the following: If it is true that there exists a natural trend towards a good detected by the human intelligence (as an ontological condition given per se) it is required that the liberty to act in consequence, that is to say, it is not enough for a person in detecting a possible good, but he needs to put into operation his liberty in order to get closer to it and execute it, and, once his operational in his liberty, then he is capable to act ethically, but if you start from the basis that acting well or not, depends on the brain structure and of the connections in it are done, then there will be no space of deliberation where the human being, rather freely, will address him, because everything will depend on the existence and functioning of the brain, and not from a decision made in accordance with their own conscience, which is particular of a free act.

Taken to an extreme, this argument closes the possibility to act freely and even, the responsibility over their actions,²³ being able then, to justify almost any behavior, claiming the correct or incorrect functioning of the brain structures.

The human behavior determinism, the annulment of the liberty and of the responsibility and of the opening up of possible justifications for acts even inhumane, are some of the consequences detached from thinking that is possible to locate and even predict the human being behavior, by studying and analyzing his brain.