The Morality of Moral Neuroenhancement

Abstract

Abstract. This chapter reviews recent philosophical and neuroethical literature on the morality of moral neuroenhancements. It first briefly outlines the main moral arguments that have been made concerning moral status neuroenhancements. These are neurointerventions that would augment the moral status of human persons. It then surveys recent debate regarding moral desirability neuroenhancements: neurointerventions that augment that the moral desirability of human character traits, motives or conduct. This debate has contested, among other claims (i) Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu's contention that there is a moral imperative to pursue the development of moral desirability neuroenhancements, (ii) Thomas Douglas' claim that voluntarily undergoing moral desirability neuroenhancements would often be morally permissible, and (iii) David DeGrazia's claim that moral desirability neuroenhancements would often be morally desirable. The chapter discusses a number of concerns that have been raised regarding moral desirability neuroenhancements, including concerns that they would restrict freedom, would produce only a superficial kind of moral improvement, would rely on technologies that are liable to be misused, and would frequently misfire, resulting in moral deterioration rather than moral improvement.

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

“…Likewise, David DeGrazia has characterized the treatment (or prevention) of antisocial personality disorder as a uncontroversial example of moral enhancement [40], and Thomas Douglas has discussed Binstitutions of criminal justice'^as institutions that are arguably Balready engaged in a kind of moral enhancement^ [41].…”

The Unique and Practical Advantages of Applying A Capability Approach to Brain Computer Interface

“…While some scholars discussing possible future BCI applications have focused on applications that are further in the future, such as improving moral character (DeGrazia, 2014;Douglas, 2008Douglas, , 2015Earp et al, 2018;Persson & Savulescu, 2008, or ushering in a new stage of human evolution (Bostrom, 2003;Harris, 2007), we consider military BCI applications, because there are multiple wellfunded research projects currently underway designed to produce near term results. In the USA, the military has not only been a leading funder of BCI research and development since the 1970s; it is currently embarked on research forecast to result in near-term military applications.…”

“…Unlike BCI applications in cases 1 and 2, which are not ethically contested, neuroenhancement stirs significant controversy. Some scholars hold that cognitively enhancing is morally imperative to save the planet (Douglas 2008(Douglas , 2015Persson & Savulescu, 2008; others maintain it is allowable in certain instances if people elect it (DeGrazia, 2014). Still others endorse humans improving themselves in a thoroughgoing way (Bostrom, 2003;Harris, 2007).…”

What is Criminal Rehabilitation?

“…On the nature of moral improvement we can, for example, distinguish between views according to which moral improvement consists in the acquisition of more justified moral beliefs, more morally virtuous character traits, more praiseworthy moral motives, or more morally desirable actions. 48 On the scope of legitimate moral improvement, we can distinguish between attempts to morally improve a person with respect to the particular type of conduct for which the individual has been convicted, or more globally.…”