Implications of the Right Against Mental Interference

Abstract In this chapter, Douglas draws out some of the implications of his account of the right against mental interference. He first identifies some types of mental influence that are unlikely to infringe the right: influences that consist in reporting reasons, implicitly drawing attention to reasons, or creating new reasons. He then identifies some other types of mental influence that are likely infringe the right: most notably, nonconsensual neurointerventions. Finally, he discusses some hard cases—cases in which either the implications of his account are unclear, or it is unclear whether the implications are plausible: salience-based nudges, conditioning-based interventions, and deception, including via subliminal imagery. He suggests that conditioning-based influences and influences employing subliminal imagery could plausibly infringe the right.