Imagining Moral Bioenhancement Practices: Drawing Inspiration from Moral Education, Public Health Ethics, and Forensic Psychiatry

Abstract

In this article, we consider contexts or domains in which (future) moral bioenhancement interventions possibly or most likely will be implemented. By looking closely at similar or related existing practices and their relevant ethical frameworks, we hope to identify ethical considerations that are relevant for evaluating potential moral bioenhancement interventions. We examine, first, debates on the proper scope of moral education; second, proposals for identifying early risk factors for antisocial behaviour; and third, the difficult balancing of individual freedom and third party concerns in (forensic) psychiatry. In imagining moral bioenhancement in practice, we observe that unlike other forms of enhancement, moral enhancement fundamentally asks how the interests and preferences of the individual and the interests of others should be weighed (in view of public safety and managing public risk). Highly diverse domains such as education, mental health, and the judicial domain might be involved, and moral bioenhancement might challenge existing institutional settings. Given these highly varied contexts and domains, it appears unlikely that there will be a distinct set of practices that will be referred to as "moral bioenhancement."

Public Attitudes Towards Moral Enhancement. Evidence that Means Matter Morally

“…However, as “the advantages of moral enhancement may fall upon society rather than on those who are enhanced” [ 53 ], the need to balance potential risks to the one subjected to the program with benefits to others is arguably a central challenge when discussing moral enhancement. A fundamental question is how to weigh the interests and preferences of the individual and the interests of others (in view of public safety and managing public risk) [ 30 ].…”

“…In earlier articles we therefore advocated a more focused debate on the potential domains for which moral bioenhancement interventions will most likely will be implemented [ 29 , 30 ]. Similarly, Harris Wiseman has advocated a ‘practical-realities first’ approach to potential moral bioenhancement interventions, implying that speculation about moral bioenhancement should account for “the specific practical realities to be found on the ground level, which are not at all incidental but the very realities around which the abstractions of the debate must be made to shape themselves (not the other way around)” [ 4 ].…”

Ethics of early detection of disease risk factors: A scoping review

“…Harmful impacts of early detection of disease risk factors are especially problematic and unjustified when results are incorrect. Authors warn that false-positive results can lead to unnecessary labeling and interventions [ 15 , 27 , 28 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 60 ]. Likewise, false-negative results can deprive patients from beneficial early interventions and provoke unjustified feelings of security [ 27 , 28 , 47 , 60 ], possibly leading to the neglect of early symptoms (“They said everything was okey”) [ 2 , p. 278].…”

Forensic Practitioners’ Views on Stimulating Moral Development and Moral Growth in Forensic Psychiatric Care

“…Several commentators in this debate, including the present authors, have discussed whether psychiatric treatments that address neurobiological risk factors for deviant behaviour should indeed be understood as proper instances of moral enhancement [34][35][36]. Discussing the treatment of forensic mental health disorders in terms of the overall practice of moral enhancement 3 A recent comparison of forensic psychiatric care in England, Germany and The Netherlands confirms the presence of the dual role or dual relationship dilemma in Western European contexts: BClearly, all three countries are in the process of significant challenges and changes in care provision reflecting the tensions between the two key values of forensic psychiatry: Care for the individual and protection of the public^ [25].…”