Moral Enhancement, Freedom, and the God Machine

Abstract

1. The Science of MoralityOne of the emerging subdisciplines of the cognitive sciences is the science of morality. Advanced techniques in neuroscience, such as neuroimaging, together with sophisticated pharmacological, psychological, and economic experiments have begun to shed light on the neural and psychological underpinnings of moral judgement and behaviour. Such research has created great controversy. Some neuroscientists have argued for 'brain-based' ethics (Gazzaniga 2005), claiming that moral decisions have to be compatible with our knowledge of the human brain or even directly inferred from it. Neuroscientists have already claimed that their research has dramatic implications for the practice and substance of ethics. It has been argued, for example, that neuroscientific findings show that political debate is conducted largely at the emotional level (Westen 2007) or that they undermine the common ethical practice of appealing to intuitions (Sunstein 2005; Singer 2005). Moreover, it has been claimed that such research undermines common moral views, exposing Kantian ethics as a 'mere confabulation' based on gut reactions, and supports utilitarianism (Singer 2005; Greene 2008). Some ethical positions have been criticized as 'neurally implausible' (Casebeer and Churchland 2003; Churchland 201 1).2. Moral EnhancementAlthough these claims are at this point speculative, science is likely to reshape our conceptions of justified morality. Indeed, it might even offer means of conforming to morality. In a recent series of articles and books (Persson and Savulescu 2012; Persson and Savulescu 201 la, b, and c; Persson and Savulescu 2010; Persson and Savulescu 2008), we have argued that there is an urgent need to explore the possibility of using the emerging science of morality to develop means of enhancing moral dispositions. The argument goes roughly like this.For most of the time the human species has existed, human beings have lived in comparatively small and close-knit societies, with primitive technology that enabled them to affect only their most immediate environment. Their moral psychology adapted to make them fit to live in these conditions. This moral psychology is 'myopic', restricted to concern about people in the neighbourhood and the immediate future. But through science and technology, humans have radically changed their living conditions, while their moral psychology has remained fundamentally the same throughout this technological and social evolution, which continues at an accelerating speed. Human beings now live in societies with millions of citizens and with an advanced scientific technology which enables them to exercise an influence that extends all over the world and far into the future. This is leading to increasing environmental degradation and to harmful climate change. The advanced scientific technology has also equipped human beings with nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction which might be used by states in wars over dwindling natural resources or by terrorists. Liberal democracies cannot overcome these problems by developing novel technology. What is needed is an enhancement of the moral dispositions of their citizens, an extension of their moral concern beyond a small circle of personal acquaintances, including those existing further in the future. The expansion of our powers of action as the result of technological progress must be balanced by a moral enhancement on our part. Otherwise, our civilization, we argued, is itself at risk. It is doubtful whether this moral enhancement could be accomplished by means of traditional moral education. There is therefore ample reason to explore the prospects of moral enhancement by biomedical means.In the first part of this paper, we will summarise the science that indicates that moral enhancement itself may be a realistic prospect. In the second part, we will examine whether moral bioenhancement is compatible with individual freedom and autonomy. …