Too Much of a Good Thing? Enhancement and the Burden of Self-Determination

Abstract

There is a remedy available for many of our ailments: Psychopharmacology promises to alleviate unsatisfying memory, bad moods, and low selfesteem. Bioethicists have long discussed the ethical implications of enhancement interventions. However, they have not considered relevant evidence from psychology and economics. The growth in autonomy in many areas of life is publicized as progress for the individual. However, the broadening of areas at one's disposal together with the increasing individualization of value systems leads to situations in which the range of options asks too much of the individual. I scrutinize whether increased self-determination and unbound possibilities are really in a person's best interests. Evidence from psychology and economics challenges the assumption that unlimited autonomy is best in all cases. The responsibility for autonomous self-formation that comes with possibilities provided by neuro-enhancement developments can be a burden. To guarantee quality of life I suggest a balance of beneficence, support, and respect for autonomy.

On normative judgments and ethics

“…a disability, disfunction, or disorder). The same distinction has been made previously by a number of scholars [2–4], and though it may appeal to our intuitive sensibilities I believe that a more rigorous consideration and analysis of the distinction, made by several authors in the past [5, 6], reveals its lack of a solid underpinning principle.…”

The empowerment expectation–perception gap: An examination of three alternative models

“…In addition, previous studies suggest that autonomy can be a double‐edged sword in relation to individual well‐being (Nagel, ) and performance (Cordery, Morrison, Wright, & Wall, ; Haas, ; Langfred, ). Autonomy can give subordinates the ability to make their own independent decisions according to the tasks they have to fulfil (Kanter, ; Spreitzer, ).…”

“…The lack of interaction with others could also reduce subordinates' organisation‐based self‐esteem, resulting in a lower sense of impact (Bowling, Eschleman, Qiang, Kirkendall, & Alarcon, ). In addition, the increased number of choices presented to subordinates as a result of self‐determination reinforcement can become a burden (Nagel, ). Although having choices is better than not having choices, if the opportunity costs associated with every decision and the fear of regret become overwhelming, subordinates will no longer be able to make rational choices, and the choices they do make may become a strain (Nagel, ).…”

Autonomy—A Genuinely Gradual Phenomenon

“…Interventions that increase the capacity for self-governance can be helpful in clinical contexts when the practice of self-control matters for the problem, such as might be the case in addiction. Finding a way to increase competence for self-governance and supporting autonomous choice is a crucial task: Instead of being disempowering, autonomy support enables the individual to choose autonomously while receiving beneficent guidance in the decision-making process if requested (Nagel 2010;Nagel and Reiner 2013). There is now abundant evidence that self-control contributes to happiness and subjective well-being (Hofmann et al 2013), suggesting that autonomy support is beneficial for more than just dysfunctional circumstances.…”