How (not) to Argue For Moral Enhancement: Reflections on a Decade of Debate

Abstract

Keywords Moral enhancement · Bioenhancement · Climate change · Methodological individualism · Moral education · Anti-behaviorist fallacy "Advances in the cognitive sciences have made neurotechnology imperative… The cognitive sciences are now the critical sciences; they will determine the answer to the ultimate moral question of human survival. Given the urgency of this immediate survival problem, the cognitive and social sciences must enable us to control [our] animalistic, barbaric, and primitive propensities … and subordinate these negatives to the uniquely human moral and ethical characteristics of love, kindness, and empathy. … We can no longer afford to rely solely on the traditional, prescientific attempts to contain human cruelty and destructiveness. The techniques and appeals of religion, moral philosophy, law, and education … are, in themselves, no longer appropriate [in] the present survival urgency. …The work on the effects of direct stimulation of certain areas of the brain, … the effects of certain drugs on exciting, tranquilizing, or depressing the emotional and motivational levels of the individual; … suggest that we might be on the threshold of that type of scientific biochemical intervention which could stabilize and make dominant [our] moral and ethical propensities … and subordinate, if not eliminate, … negative and primitive behavioral tendencies. ….It is possible to object to the era of neurotechnology on 'moral' grounds and to assert that these suggestions are repugnant because they are manipulative and will take away [the] natural right to make errors-even those errors which perpetrate cruelties and destruction upon other human beings. In the light of the realities of and possible consequences of nuclear weaponry, these allegedly moral arguments seem mockingly, pathetically immoral. It Abstract The controversy over moral bioenhancement has fallen into a stalemate between advocates and critics. We wish to overcome this stalemate by addressing some of the key challenges any moral enhancement project has to meet. In particular, we shall argue that current proposals are unpersuasive as they, first, fail to diagnose the often complex causes of contemporary moral maladies and, second, are premised on methodological individualism. Focusing on brains and minds neglects social and environmental factors. Solving the mega-problems of today very likely requires more than transforming individual brains, it requires structural and higher-level changes. By itself, moral bioenhancement is thus insufficient for solving these problems. Moreover, we outline some of the yet unresolved problems of (democratic) legitimacy a mandatory state-run bioenhancement project faces and show why they cannot be defused through analogies with moral education. Finally, normatively less worrisome means of enhancing morality, such as psychotherapies affording self-exploration, are already available. Moral bioenhancement may thus not even be necessary for solving today's mega problems. The overemphasis on speculative future te...

Desafíos éticos del biomejoramiento moral

“…En consecuencia, consideran que la única "mejora" moral aceptable serían aquellas que se dirijan a devolver la autonomía personal perdida o dañada por una lesión fisiológica (neuronal, endocrina o genética), pero donde la técnica no sustituya a la capacidad de elegir entre el bien y el mal. Por eso, estos autores muestran ciertas dudas hacia aquellas intervenciones en las que la tecnología de biomejoramiento suplanta el esfuerzo moral y la libre decisión de mejorar (Glannon, 2018;Huang, 2018;Paulo y Bublitz, 2019).…”

‘Beyond’ Human Enhancement — Taking the Developing Country’s Perspective Seriously

“…As a result, this paper essentially critiques Buchanan's arguments while building its own arguments. Paulo and Bublitz (2019) reflect on a decade of the enhancement debate and the proenhancement arguments that claim that moral bioenhancements may be the solution to humankind's largest issues, for example, David DeGrazia (2014) referring to genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia or Molly Crockett discussing political conflict. Critically, Paulo and Bublitz (2019) recognized that the current debate still lacks a "thorough analysis of the causes" and in turn "leads to an overemphasis of specific means".…”

“…Paulo and Bublitz (2019) reflect on a decade of the enhancement debate and the proenhancement arguments that claim that moral bioenhancements may be the solution to humankind's largest issues, for example, David DeGrazia (2014) referring to genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia or Molly Crockett discussing political conflict. Critically, Paulo and Bublitz (2019) recognized that the current debate still lacks a "thorough analysis of the causes" and in turn "leads to an overemphasis of specific means". Rather, this paper's first argument suggests that we avoid "the reductionist framing of global problems as deficits" (Paulo and Bublitz 2019), by critiquing the neoliberal frame with which past arguments have been put forward and suggest a frame that may suit the developing country instead.…”

“…Critically, Paulo and Bublitz (2019) recognized that the current debate still lacks a "thorough analysis of the causes" and in turn "leads to an overemphasis of specific means". Rather, this paper's first argument suggests that we avoid "the reductionist framing of global problems as deficits" (Paulo and Bublitz 2019), by critiquing the neoliberal frame with which past arguments have been put forward and suggest a frame that may suit the developing country instead.…”

“…This argument is directed at the overarching theme of the pro-enhancement debate that pushes the idea (or in this case, frame) that enhancements can be beneficial and alleviate global poverty and injustice. As noted above, several moral enhancement arguments have been put forward as a solution to solve global justice, yet the issue of contextual analysis remains (Paulo and Bublitz 2019). Merely two years ago, Oliver Feeney (2019) too called for a change in framing:…”