IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine - July 2016 - 112

pleasant, playful, sometimes imprudent, often [injudicious]; and which had with all that, courage, generosity,
frankness, and a certain point of honour, one should
avoid disturbing its manners by laws, in order not to
disturb its [tranquility].
It is here that we argue that the right to exercise moral freedom must be given both to those who are acting intuitively as
well as instinctively, to the extent that one's intuition or instinct
aligns with the rights of the one and does not work against the
good of the collective in a way that is objectively proven. Human
instinct is innate and does not parallel Taylor's notion of inclination but rather in various disciplines such as business is referred
to as a gut feeling [12]. This feeling is subjective-often going
against all odds-making it distinctly separate from an inclination derived due to calculative thoughts or social influences.
Hence, moral freedom-pertaining to adopting body-invasive
practices or technologies as well as the refusal of such practices-should not be based on one's ability to articulate the rationale
behind one's position whether the individual believes adoption to
be right or wrong. We argue that human choice, concerning the
right of moral freedom, is not just for the cognitively developed,
as intelligence is not limited to academic achievement.

(a)

WHO OWNS MY BODY WHEN
TECHNOLOGIES INVADE IT?

(b)
FIGURE 5. Amal Graaftra, director of Dangerous Things, gets an
RFID implant in the webbing of his right hand in early 2005.
Graaftra is a Washington state native and business owner who
launched www.myuki.com. The photos show (a) the point of
implantation and (b) the bandage after the implantation procedure. (Courtesy of Amal Graafstra, 2005.)

Although Taylor argues the need for an objective stance, he in
no way supports penal actions for those who have not reached
a place of true moral freedom-a place where the self is free
from inclinations of the culture in which one is imbued. While
this reference helps to aid in determining the distinction that
needs to be made, and clearly supports the notion that a certain level of maturity must be in place before an individual
can truly exercise proper moral freedom, it in no way supports
the notion that freedom of choice should be taken from individuals who lack the capacity to clearly decipher personal
motivations as to whether one's decisions are objectively
made and free from external influences, once legal age of consent has been met-at least insomuch that it is in reference to
one's own autonomous self. Likewise, Baron de Montesquieu
advocated against a standardizing of society or leveling of
tastes or ideologies through imposed indoctrinations.
Montesquieu wrote [38, p. 54]:
If there were in the world a nation which had a sociable
humour, an openness of heart, a joy in life, a taste, an
ease in communicating its thoughts; which was lively,
112 IEEE ConsumEr ElECtronICs magazInE

^

JULY 2016

In issues that involve moral freedom, there needs to be a clear
distinction-let us call it the plumb line. The distinction that
needs to be made is concerning ownership of one's own body
in the interchange with body-invasive technologies. Currently,
there is a great divide, and so while in our examples we have
largely focused on free adopters (i.e., so-named modern
primitives, also known as RFIDs, biohackers, grinders, or doit-yourselfers) who alter one's appearance as a means of conveying information of one's identity to freely exercise
self-governance, the line is not being drawn here but rather
the plumb line is, by placing individuals under marks of servitude through top-down practices or organizational implementation, imposing an ideology of acceptance that is not
one's own. While the first supports freedom to self-determinate, the second leaves no room for moral freedom to be
exercised-such as with an outright refusal of accepting
changes to one's physical capital.
Various theorists are arguing body modification is a way
of constructing one's identity. For example, inserting metal
devices under the skin can be seen as a form of resistance to
traditional pressures to normalize, by means of challenging
the expected norms of society (Figure 6) [24]. However,
while modern primitives engage in consumption, whereby
they use one's own body as a form of physical capital, it
often parallels the Western civilities position of extreme
commoditization of external goods [6, p. 305].
It can be argued that rather than the modern primitive taking a stand against repressive systems or resisting expected
societal norms, through using one's own body beyond its
natural intent, the individual is instead aligning with the linear
historical direction of overincreasing rationality that seeks to
http://www.myuki.com
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine - July 2016
