THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST MICRO-CHIPPING CHILDREN
The question as to whether or not one should use micro-chips to track the whereabouts of children would at one stage have appeared to be clearly dystopian. However, it is now one a serious topic of conversation and one that can be seen to reach to reach to the heart of serious issues concerning crime prevention, personal safety, human rights and what it means to be a parent. Indeed, if one is to fully understand the potential scope of the debate surrounding the issue, it is necessary to take into account all of these factors before deciding whether or not one is for or against such action, or whether or not it is ethically acceptable. This paper will begin by presenting these perspectives, before going on to consider which may be take to be the most sound. It will conclude by suggesting that, although arguments can be made for the micro-chipping children and people, such a process would breach rights of citizenship and freedoms upon which the US state has been based since its inception.
Many parents support the idea of using micro-chips to be able to locate children. One recent reporter has noted that parents call Brick Hose Security, a major manufacturer of locater chips at several times a day in order to request such a process (Taylor, 2015). The major motivation which lies behind such a request is the desire for protection and security in a world which many perceive to be increasingly hostile to children and in which kidnappings, especially of middle-class to wealthy children, are seen as as much of a risk as they have ever been. Being able to instantly locate a child using micro-chip technology would not only make them safer from such action, but it would also allow parents to locate children who had perhaps run away from home, or who had simply failed to attend school. In any case, it is clear that a parental interest in the security and overall behaviour of a child may be served by the use of micro-chip technology.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"To Chip or Not to Chip: The Case for and Against Micro-Chipping Children".
Likewise, it could be argued that the manufacturers of such chips would clearly benefit, provided that they were able to provide the service needed to the relevant standard. Within a capitalist economy then the patenting and manufacture of the necessary technology would enable large profits, together with a continuous process of innovation as other companies sought to enter the market with either efficient or more effective chips. Once again, therefore it can be seen that such micro-chipping may be a positive outcome for the manufacturers of such chips. Certain branches of government may also argue that micro-chipping children, and adults, would be hugely beneficial. The ability to locate particular individuals quickly and efficiently would save large amounts of money on resources spent in kidnapping cases, and it is also likely to act as a powerful deterrent against the taking of such hostages in the first place. Likewise, the micro-chipping of felons or suspects would greatly decrease the capacity for people to evade justice or to go underground. Again this would make crime prevention easier, save resources and act as a deterrent for individuals who are aware that they can be easily tracked.
Despite this, however, the instantiation of micro-chipping raises serious ethical and legal issues which cannot be ignored. It would amount, in effect, to a complete invasion of privacy on the behalf of both parents and the government, and may, as well as enabling children to be located, mean that it is all but impossible for such children to escape abusive situations. It is also not clear that such a strategy would increase security. Indeed, key American thinkers have argued that there is a direct correlation between personal freedom and security, and that State intervention effectively may effectively harm a system of relative equilibrium.
Such a view is expressed by Milton Friedman (2002) when he writes that a situation which minimizes State intervention and respects individual rights to freedom is one which “is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another” (2002, p. 56). The most convincing argument that can be made for the use of microchips for both children and adults is that they may effectively increase security and that they may save money on resources as well. However, such an increase in security can also be argued to lead to a fundamental invasion of privacy, and a potential breach of citizenship rights for those who must undergo. When this is the case, the procedures that generate it may just as well be argued to be as threatening to the US way of life as they beneficial to it. As such, the potential benefits to one branch of the US government are overruled and by the responsibilities and concerns of government in general. For this reason, I would argue that the micro-chipping of children and people is unethical and should be avoided.
In conclusion, this paper has argued that the micro-chipping of children, and fully grown adults, can be argued to provide a certain degree of security, and in particular cases to hypothetically save valuable time and resources. Despite this, however, the process would represent a fundamental breach of rights, and it would also potentially represent a level of State intervention which clearly runs counter to traditional ways of thinking of the value of freedom, and the security that may result from it. For this reason it seems clear that micro-chipping is unethical and potentially counter-productive and should therefore not be encouraged.
