The ethical desirability of moral bioenhancement: a review of reasons

Abstract

BackgroundThe debate on the ethical aspects of moral bioenhancement focuses on the desirability of using biomedical as opposed to traditional means to achieve moral betterment. The aim of this paper is to systematically review the ethical reasons presented in the literature for and against moral bioenhancement.DiscussionA review was performed and resulted in the inclusion of 85 articles. We classified the arguments used in those articles in the following six clusters: (1) why we (don’t) need moral bioenhancement, (2) it will (not) be possible to reach consensus on what moral bioenhancement should involve, (3) the feasibility of moral bioenhancement and the status of current scientific research, (4) means and processes of arriving at moral improvement matter ethically, (5) arguments related to the freedom, identity and autonomy of the individual, and (6) arguments related to social/group effects and dynamics. We discuss each argument separately, and assess the debate as a whole. First, there is little discussion on what distinguishes moral bioenhancement from treatment of pathological deficiencies in morality. Furthermore, remarkably little attention has been paid so far to the safety, risks and side-effects of moral enhancement, including the risk of identity changes. Finally, many authors overestimate the scientific as well as the practical feasibility of the interventions they discuss, rendering the debate too speculative.SummaryBased on our discussion of the arguments used in the debate on moral enhancement, and our assessment of this debate, we advocate a shift in focus. Instead of speculating about non-realistic hypothetical scenarios such as the genetic engineering of morality, or morally enhancing ‘the whole of humanity’, we call for a more focused debate on realistic options of biomedical treatment of moral pathologies and the concrete moral questions these treatments raise.

Bioética y realce moral biotécnico

“…A meta-analysis of several well-respected databases seeking articles related to moral bioenhancement, the study of 85 publications, specifically excluding 14 that addressed the subject but were not written in English, highlighted that the debate does not adequately distinguish proposals to morally enhance "humanity as a whole", from treatments focused on specific alterations of mental health (such as psychopathies) 29 . The discomforts and moral problems of humanity are severe and complex, caused by structural forces of social, cultural, political and economic order, where individual moral deficiencies have little influence.…”

Non-invasive means of moral improvement – a critical review of selected methods

“…and each practice that does not affect human brain directly (also upbringing and socialization) belong to the second group. This distinction is essential for the debate about moral bioenhancement, its ethical and practical dimension [Focquaert & Schermer, 2015;Specker et al, 2014]. However, for the purpose of this paper, it is not indispensable to focus on the ethical pros and cons of direct methods.…”

Applied Mysticism: A Drug‐enabled Visionary Experience Against Moral Blindness

“…Interested readers can consult Specker et al. (), which contains a summary of the central arguments for and against moral enhancement. As one can see, this article revolves around arguments that consider that (1) human nature is defective in this context of technological development; (2) traditional means, such as education, are not sufficient—although this does not imply that they are not needed; and (3) moral enhancement would open a way to avoid great harm or major disasters.…”