Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T04:52:17.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Doing Good, Choosing Freely: How Moral Enhancement Can Be Compatible with Individual Freedom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2018

JOSHUA M. BROSTOFF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Moral enhancement has been accused of curtailing human freedoms. In this article, I suggest the opposite: moral enhancement and individual freedom can go hand in hand. The first section defines freedom, enhancement, and morality and argues that only a naturalistic account of morality allows for the concept of enhancement. The second section looks at ways that freedom may be threatened by moral enhancement, especially by the method of implementation, the creation of new externalities, or the limitation of volitional options. I argue that virtue ethics offers the safest model for moral enhancement. The third section describes ways in which moral enhancement can be achieved while maintaining, or even increasing, individual freedom. Such methods include shifting of the moral axis, replacing vicious options with virtuous ones, and increasing the number of volitional options available. The article concludes in the fourth section by arguing that the technology and techniques that allow us moral enhancement are likely to be the same ones that allow greater freedom than we already enjoy.

Keywords

moral enhancementfreedommoralityvirtue ethics
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 27 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2018 , pp. 698 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Stalley, RF. Plato’s doctrine of freedom. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 1998;98:145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Schroeder, D. Human rights and human dignity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2012;15(3):323–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Libet, B, Gleason, CA, Wright, EW, Pearl, DK. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). Brain 1983;(106):623–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Greene, J. The secret joke of Kant’s Soul. In: Moral Psychology, Volume 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2008:35–80.Google Scholar

5. Haggard, P. Sense of agency in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2017;18(4):1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Fischer, JM, Kane, R, Pereboom, D, Vargas, M. Four Views on Free Will. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2007.Google Scholar

7. Haji, I. Compatibilist views of freedom and responsibility. In: The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002:202–28.Google Scholar

8. Berlin, I. Two concepts of liberty. In: Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1969:1–32.Google Scholar

9. Frankfurt, H. Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy 1971;68(1):5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. How much of one component might we sacrifice for a disproportionate gain in the other? I suspect that we would not sacrifice any of our freedom of action for even a huge gain in our freedom of will. This is because humans intuitively believe that we already have complete freedom of will. A thought experiment equivalent to Robert Nozick’s experience machine—“the freedom machine”—might sway the skeptical. How would you feel about entering an experience machine that promises you an artificial world where you have complete freedom of will but no change in your external circumstances?

11. Kamm, FM. Is there a problem with enhancement? The American Journal of Bioethics 2005;5(3):5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Savulescu, J. Justice, fairness, and enhancement. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2006;1093(1):321–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Harris, J. Enhancing Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2007, at 36.Google Scholar

14. Sunstein, CR. The Ethics of Influence. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Shu, LL, Mazar, N, Gino, F, Ariely, D, Bazerman, MH. Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2012;109:15,197–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. Smart, JJC, Williams, B. Utilitarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. MacIntyre, A. After Virtue. London: Bloomsbury; 2011.Google Scholar

18. Anscombe, GEM. Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy 1958;33(124):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Hursthouse, R. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.Google Scholar

20. Nussbaum, M. Non-relative virtues: An Aristotelian approach. In: Shafer-Landau, R, ed. Ethical Theory: An Anthology, 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2013:630–44.Google Scholar

21. Shook, JR. Neuroethics and the possible types of moral enhancement. AJOB Neuroscience 2012;3(4):3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Haidt, J, Joseph, C. The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In: Carruthers, P, Laurence, S, Stich, S, eds. The Innate Mind, Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008, at 387.Google Scholar

23. Harris, J. Moral enhancement and freedom. Bioethics 2010;25(2):102–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

24. Douglas, T. Moral enhancement via direct emotional modulation: A reply to John Harris. Bioethics 2011;27(3):160–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

25. This would be particularly true in a society in which, for example, preimplantation genetic diagnosis would be used to allow the implantation only of “sufficiently moral” embryos. This is a complex area that seems to curtail parental freedom although, interestingly, not the freedom of the child.

26. Kahn, JP, Mastroianni, A. The implications of public health for bioethics. In: Steinbock, B, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007, at 673.Google Scholar

27. Illich, I. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper & Row; 1971.Google Scholar

28. Thaler, R, Sunstein, CR. Nudge. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2008.Google Scholar

29. Dearden L. Hear the stories of those brought to safety aboard the MSF’s largest rescue ship. The Independent. 2016; available at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-msf-bourbon-argos-rescue-ship-mediterranean-libya-syria-isis-nigeria-escape-poverty-a7399796.html (last accessed 4 Nov 2017).

30. Petryna, A. Life Exposed: Biological Citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2013.Google Scholar

31. It is then a matter of debate whether these people would deserve moral praise for their actions. Could they have done otherwise?

32. Shook, JR, Giordano, J. Neuroethics beyond normal. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2016;25:121–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

33. Douglas, T. Moral enhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy 2008;25(3):1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

34. See note 24, Douglas 2011.

35. Harris, J. Moral enhancement and freedom. Bioethics 2010;25(2):102–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. Strawson, PF. Freedom and resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy 1962;48:1–25.Google Scholar

37. Lewis, DK. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell; 1986.Google Scholar