Ethics of morality and the brain

Imagine that we have developed some sort of technology where we can grow new human brain cells and use them to help people who have damaged brain cells. For example, someone who is born with schizophrenia and hears voices in their head out of nowhere then, when they use this new technology, they can't hear those voices anymore.<br><br>From a certain perspective, this new technology has changed the person's morals beliefs. They used to believe that the voices they heard were angels and the voices were telling them to do good things. Now that the voices are gone, they no longer believe that the voices were good things. This new perspective makes them more productive in the sense that they can work better and they can socialize a lot better without hearing voices at odd times. At the same time, it has also changed their perspective on life because they no longer believe that they've been chosen to be a saint from the voices in their head. <br> <br>What are the ethics of this? The ethics of this technology deviates away from absolute morality (which is a hegelian dialectic) and moves more into other forms of morality that are based on sociology and productivity.<br><br>This new technology has also changed the way that people communicate. Before the technology existed, there was a stigma against people who heard voices in their head that weren't there because they were seen as being crazy and unproductive. After the technology existed, people who heard voices in their head just needed to get the new brain cells and then they're seen as normal, productive people. But if they choose not to get the brain cells, then they are still viewed as crazy people.<br> <br>As a result of the technology, norms have changed. My question is are these new norms better or worse than they were before? <br> <br>For one, the norms are arguably more productive than was existing before. Whereas before, people who heard voices weren't seen as productive people, now the people who hear voices are seen as productive people. But it could be argued that the new norms are very oppressive. Before, people who heard voices just needed to learn to live with it. But now, if people hear voices and they don't get this new technology, then they're looked at as being inferior to people who don't hear voices and to people who hear voices but take the new technology.<br><br>So, what are the ethics of this? How do we know if the new norms are better or worse?