Is The Government Guilty In Daniel Dennett's Where Am I?

Continuing with the case of Dennett vs NASA, I am being called upon to make recommendations to the court on various philosophical issues related to the aftermath of the short story “Where Am I?”, by Daniel Dennett. The latest issue pertains to whether or not the government is guilt for their role in the transformation of Dennett 's body being controlled by two people. While they are not fully responsible for what happened, the government certainly has some blame for this situation and a moral obligation to rectify this situation by finding Dennett a new body.
The most obvious reason that the government is guilty is that the events that lead to this unfortunate situation for Dennett was completely their idea. They sought out Dennett to undertake a dangerous mission and undergo an unusual brain procedure. They promised Dennett that this was safe, and everything would be okay. Since the government orchestrated the entire mission, it should be their responsibility to properly deal with the fallout that occurred because of their plan. From a consequentialist viewpoint, the government’s actions were wrong, because the outcome was disastrous. They lead Dennett to the “death” of his birth-body and left Yorick temporarily bodiless. Their actions started the chain of bad event happening, which left Dennett in this conundrum. To expand on the previous point, we further know that the government is to blame here, because some of their actions admit guilt. When Yorick was bodiless after the radiation destroyed Dennett’s body, the government gave Dennett a new body. They felt obligated to take responsibility for what happened, and correct the issue. In doing so, they admitted that they are at fault for what happened, as their plan failed miserably, and their promises to Dennett were broken. Our society has a social norm that promises or assurances will not be broken and violating that norm is unacceptable in most circumstances, and can even be considered morally wrong if the promise was actually a lie. In this particular case, the government lead Dennett to his death, and a simple apology is not enough repercussion to remedy this terrible outcome. …show more content…
The government did not force him to agree to become involved with the mission. Dennett could have simply turned the offer down, and then none of these unfortunate events would have happened. The government’s initial intentions (difficult to accurately gauge) did not appear to involve any harm done to Dennett, which by Kantian ethics shows that the government was not doing any wrong up to this point. Furthermore, what happened in Oklahoma could also be considered a tragic accident, and Dennett was aware of the possibility that something could go terribly wrong during the mission. It could be argued that Dennett knew what he signed up for and therefore, and was well aware of the risks, so the government cannot be held liable for any negative consequences. While this argument may have some truth to it, it is not completely sound. When a company, organization, or government is a part of or responsible for a tragedy, it is their moral responsibility to do everything they possibly can to support and offer help to those negatively affected by the tragic event. The government’s solution was to give Dennett a new body, but they also attached Hubert to this body, which means that they really never properly fixed the initial problem, they instead created a new