id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentences	flesch	summary	cache	txt
work_mfuf7tphlbhxvi75w6re7gepu4	Areti Theofilopoulou	Punishment as Moral Fortification and Non-Consensual Neurointerventions	2019	19	.pdf	application/pdf	7596	401	48	offenders can discharge their fortificational duties, states have strong reasons to Certain criminal offenders are required or given the option to undergo neurointerventions – interventions that act directly on one's An interesting and so far unexplored implication of the Fortificationist Theory is that non-consensual neurointerventions are morally permissible and perhaps even morally required, under certain objection would imply that, even if we accept that the Fortificationist Theory of Punishment produces certain reasons in favour of duty to fortify a citizen's moral powers only when this is the case. offenders' moral powers, the modes of punishment that states ought only or best way for a state to discharge these duties is by administering non-consensual neurointerventions, such as the ones described above, then it seems that this mode of punishment is Punishment as Moral Fortification and Non-Consensual Neurointerventions Punishment as Moral Fortification and Non-Consensual Neurointerventions	./cache/work_mfuf7tphlbhxvi75w6re7gepu4.pdf	./txt/work_mfuf7tphlbhxvi75w6re7gepu4.txt