Angela's Wedding, Human Enhancement

 

It is the first of May in 2122 and Angela and Ian are getting married on another warm sunny day in Ullapool. A century ago Ullapool was a cold place and marriage seemed to be in terminal decline in the Western world with fewer and fewer bothered to get married. Times have changed. A century ago most couples who married in the West married did so for love, couples fell in love and as a consewuencet got married. Love still matters but now it is of secondary importance now and usually only blossoms after marriage rather than before as it did a century ago. Marriage has fallen in line with  Asian customs. Nowadays marriage is a practical matter and needs a marriage arranger. This change in the way people marry came about shortly after pharmacological and genetic enhancement were banned because of the damage they might do to society. However many parents still wanted to give their children a goof start in life. In order to do so many parents like Angela and Ian have replaced natural selection with conscious rational selection,

Angela decided to marry not because she needed to be loved but because she wanted to have children. A century ago she might have satisfied her desire for parenthood by simply finding a suitable man or sperm donor and raising the child together or by herself. Angela is a clever woman who had clever parents and wants to have clever children as she believes that this will give them a good start in life. In order to help her achieve this desire she employed a marriage arranger called Alex who suggested suitable partners. Ian also employed Alex and he also wanted clever children. Alex takes her profession seriously. First Angela had to submit an advanced CV called a PCV. Next she interviewed Angela to get a clear idea of Angela’s preferences for any future children. Together they gave weights to these preferences and then Alex used AI to suggest suitable matches. She did the same thing with all her clients including Ian. Alex had sent details of Ian and Angela to each other and suggested that they meet. Shortly after Christmas they did so. After a few more meetings Angela and Ian decided to marry and have children. In March they settled the practical details of living together and signed a pre-nuptial agreement. Perhaps such a scenario is unlikely to come about but it isn’t implausible but it might even be argued that the class system is a primitive form of enhancement. I now want to examine its philosophical implications of the above.

For the sake of arguments let us assume that this scenario creates three main breeding groups. Angela’s group values intelligence, a second values physical and sporting prowess and lastly the traditional group who don’t prioritise any particular attributes, who still marry for love and don’t use marriage arranger. These groups aren’t races but might be classes as breeding groups of humans who mostly breed among themselves. Of course these breeding groups can interbreed but in most cases they don’t. However in a limited number of cases marriage arrangers such as Alex might recommend couples choose a partner from outside their own group in order to introduce hybrid vigour. The society which has been created seems to be a naturally created analogue of the one envisioned by Plato in his Republic. Few people would welcome such a society and this was the main reason why pharmacological and genetic enhancement were banned. At this point it might be objected that such a change in society is highly unlikely and that I have exaggerated the effectiveness of selected breeding. In response I would suggest that the Russian silver fox domestication experiment lead by Dimitry Belyayev showed that selective breeding can bring about large changes in a relatively short time, see  fox experiment . What are the consequences of accepting the above as a plausible, even if unlikely, future scenario?

First because such a scenario seems unpalatable to us because it seems to regard people as breeding animals we might take steps to prevent it occurring. Of course we are breeding animals and conscious rational selection would not make us into purely breeding animals. The breeders and those breeding are the same. Nonetheless such a scenario still seems an unpalatable one and steps might still be taken to prevent it from occurring. Unfortunately these steps would have to include measures limiting people’s ability to have children with whomsoever they please. Steps would have to be taken to control what happens in the privacy of people’s bedrooms. Such measures might be possible in a totalitarian society, China had a one child policy, but such measures would be impossible in a free society. It follows if we value our right to reproduce by natural means with anyone we choose to do so, with exception of incestuous relationships, that we must accept the possibility of the unpalatable scenario even if this is only because it is the less unpalatable option.

If we accept that enhancement could take place naturally by conscious rational selection then even if we ban pharmacological and genetic methods then perhaps we should question whether we should introduce such a ban in the first place. Such a ban would fail to fully address the problems it was meant to solve. It might be argued such a ban would delay the process giving us more time to consider how we might better mitigate some of its worst consequences for society. Perhaps but banning artificial enhancement doesn’t prevent enhancement by other means and I would suggest our energies would be better employed in regulating artificial enhancement so it takes place in a safe way. Perhaps for instance we should always take steps to enhance empathy in conjunction with any other enhancement. Perhaps also some of the harms of enhancement, which ever way they are caused, might be outweighed by some of the benefits. For instance those who are enhanced might have better health and be more able to control their destiny better.

If the unpalatable scenario came into existence one bad consequence would be that equality of opportunity might seem to be impossible. Perhaps if we accept that equality of opportunity doesn’t occur now and won’t occur in the future then we should be less concerned and concentrate on other goods. For instance we might concentrate on protecting personal autonomy and toleration. Some might argue that if we make artificial enhancement available to all that my worry about enhancement damaging equal opportunity is unfounded. Enhancement might actually increase equal opportunity.

Lastly I want to consider a much more fanciful consequence of enhancement which like climate change pose an existential threat to humanity. In the ‘Time Machine’ H G Wells envisions humanity evolving into two distinct species the Eloi and the Morlocks by natural selection. It is important to note that these are species who can’t interbreed rather than races. Might in the far distant future enhancement by artificial means or conscious rational selection lead to human speciation? Two enhanced species competing for control might pose an existential threat to humanity.

I have argued that in a free society that human enhancement is inevitable. If we accept this then instead of thinking about banning enhancement we should consider how we might mitigate some of its worst effects.

Redesigning People

In China a scientist has created two gene edited babies using CRISPR-cas9 in order to prevent HIV infection. These babies are usually referred to as designer babies. In this posting I will use the term redesign rather than design because people have already been designed by their genes and this design is shaped by nature and evolution. I will consider whether we should attempt to improve on that design by redesigning people and in what circumstances it would be permissible to do so. If we redesign a kettle we hope the redesigned kettle will be an improvement on the previous one. Intuitively it might be thought if we redesign a person the result will automatically be an improved person. However we must be wary of our intuitions and whilst it might be pointless to redesign a kettle which isn’t an improved kettle the same does not hold for persons. A kettle is designed for a single task persons aren’t. Someone might redesign a person to serve a specific purpose and such a redesigned person needn’t necessarily be an improved person when considered more broadly. Perhaps a person might be redesigned to be a better soldier such a redesigned person need only be a better soldier not a better person. Prior to considering specific wrongs which might arise if we redesign persons I want to consider the different ways in which redesigning might be wrong.

Redesigning persons might be wrong in three circumstances. Firstly we aren’t competent to redesign persons. Persons unlike kettles are highly complex and perhaps we just don’t have the expertise to carry out such redesign. If we accept the above then it would be unacceptable to redesign persons unfortunately in these circumstances we should be open to the rather unpalatable option that others such as aliens or even some advanced AI might be able to redesign us even if we can't do so. Secondly it might be suggested that whilst we don’t have the expertise to redesign persons now that we might acquire such expertise in the future. If we accept this option then whilst it would be unacceptable to redesign persons now it might become acceptable in the future and it would be sensible to debate the consequences of doing so now. Lastly it might be suggested that the act of redesign must always damage the redesigned person. Danaher explores two objections raised by Jurgen Habermas to redesigning persons in which the act of redesign damages the designee. Habermas argues redesigning a person would of necessity damage her because it would compromise her autonomy and status of equality. I will now consider the specific ways in which redesigning persons might be damaging. Firstly I will briefly consider how redesigning persons might cause damage to both persons and society by creating inequality. Secondly I will consider how redesigning a person might damage that person by compromising her autonomy.

Let us accept that Kant was right to insist that treating someone simply as a means and not an end in herself is morally wrong. It follows that if we accept that creating someone to serve our ends is equivalent to using someone to serve our ends then redesigning a person to serve the ends of another is wrong. It also follows that if someone redesigns another to serve her ends that there is a lack of equality between the designer and the designee. The choice of available ends to the designer and the designee are unequal. However why should we want to redesign a person to serve our needs? It seems probable that if our technology becomes advanced enough to redesign persons that it would also become advanced enough to design robots which aren’t, as yet, persons to serve the same needs. In this situation if we want an improved soldier, a robotic soldier would seem to be a better option than a redesigned person. Personhood would be an unnecessary extravagance and might even make the soldier less effective. The same seems true of most servants with one possible exception. Currently there is some interest in sex robots (1). However is sex with a robot genuine intercourse? I have argued that sex isn’t simply friction and as a result sex with a robot is really only an enhanced form of masturbation sex with robots . It is possible that in this situation someone might want to redesign a person to serve her sexual desires. It follows that it is conceivable that in some limited circumstances someone might want to redesign a person to serve her own ends. Such redesigning creates a person designed for the ends of another making her less equal. It follows redesigning someone to serve the ends of another is morally wrong because it creates inequalities between persons. Now let us consider whether redesigning someone in order to benefit that person might also create inequalities in society. Any society which contains both enhanced and unenhanced persons is likely to be an unequal one. It follows that we might have reason not redesign persons based on the potential damage it might do to society. How strong these reasons are will depend on the cost and availability of redesign. It is possible that redesigning persons won’t damage society. I now want to consider other reasons why redesigning persons might be wrong.

In what follows it will be accepted that to design a person in order to serve the needs of another is wrong. It will also be accepted that redesigning persons might be wrong if it creates unacceptable inequalities in society. It will also be assumed that if we redesign someone that we do so in order to benefit her. If we redesign someone in order to benefit her then this redesign is a form of enhancement. I now want examine whether redesigning someone in order to enhance her might damage her personally? Let us start our examination by considering a specific example. Some potential mothers suffer from mitochondrial disease and these mothers will normally have babies who will suffer from the same disease. Using IVF an egg taken from such a mother might be fertilised. The nucleus of this egg is then transferred to an egg with its nucleus removed which has been donated by another woman from which the nucleus has been removed creating a three parent baby. This is a clear case of redesign and it is hard to see in this case how being designed damages the designee. It also seems to answer one of the questions raised above as to whether we can effectively redesign someone, the answer is that we can at least in some cases. If we accept the above then redesigning persons is both possible and doesn’t always damage the persons involved. However are there some circumstances in which designing a person damages the designed person?

Let us recall we have excluded cases in which we redesign someone in order to serve the purposes of another and are only considering redesign in circumstances in which the redesign is intended to benefit the redesigned person. Such a redesign is a form of enhancement. Let us first consider the possibility that we can enhance only one capability and leave the rest of the designed persons capabilities unchanged. Perhaps someone might be redesigned to be stronger or have a better memory. Human beings are animals and it is hard to see from the viewpoint of an animal how such enhancement might damage the animal involved. Being stronger or remembering the hiding places of predators should give any animal an evolutionary advantage. Let us accept that enhancing a single instrumental capability whilst leaving the rest of some designed person’s capabilities unchanged doesn’t damage her physically. Much the same reasoning can be applied to enhancing several capabilities provided the remaining capabilities are unchanged. However human beings aren’t simply animals they are potential persons. Does the fact that some capacity or capacities have been chosen by another for enhancement damage her as a person? I now want to consider whether the redesigning of a person in order to enhance her damages her autonomy.

Let us return to my example in which we redesign someone to be stronger. How can being stronger damage someone’s autonomy even if this choice was made for her by another? It might be suggested that by making someone stronger we are enhancing her capacity for athletic prowess. It might then be further suggested that by enhancing her athletic prowess she becomes more likely to choose an athletic career and as a result we have limited her choices and compromised her autonomy. The same argument could be applied to redesigning someone in order to enhance other skills such as an improved memory. It might be suggested that such redesign is analogous to parents who encourage a child’s athletic prowess and that they too damage her ability to choose and as a result compromise her autonomy. In practice we accept parents who encourage their children’s athletic prowess.  After all what can be wrong with encouraging prowess in something which is beneficial? It might then be further argued that if we are prepared to accept encouraging parents who encourage athletic prowess that we should be prepared to accept parents who seek to increase this prowess by redesign. It seems to me that this argument is unsound because the analogy is not a close one as children can reject parental encouragement but they can’t reject redesign.

I have suggested that parents who encourage their children to excel in some activity don’t damage their children’s autonomy because their children can reject their parent’s choices whilst parents who redesign their children to excel in some activity might do so because their children can’t reject the enhancement. I would be unhappy to accept this suggestion for two reasons. Firstly I accept that whilst most parents who encourage their children to excel don’t damage their children’s autonomy some might. Parenting is about guidance and some parents try to direct rather than guide their children, such parents do some harm to their children’s autonomy, see parenting and excessive guidance . Secondly my objector is suggesting that the enhancement of certain capacities of someone makes it more likely that she will choose some option and that this increased probability damages her autonomy. I accept that enhancing someone’s capacity might make her more inclined to make certain choices but I want to argue this doesn’t damage her autonomy in all circumstances. Let us return to my example of parents who enhance their child so that she has greater strength. These parents have no specific life plan for their child in mind and only want their child to be stronger. Let us assume that the child decides to become a gymnast. Let us accept that her increased strength makes it both easier and more probable that she will choose this option. Does the fact that some option has been made both easier to choose and more probable to be chosen by someone due to her enhancement by others mean that her autonomy has been damaged? I would suggest that in these circumstances it doesn’t. In these circumstances our potential gymnast hasn’t been coerced and it is difficult to see how her greater strength could possibly alter her capabilities to make an autonomous choice. Making it easier for someone to choose some option isn’t the same as making her choose that option. It follows redesigning a child so she has greater strength doesn’t damage her autonomy. I would now suggest that the same argument could be applied to all her instrumental capacities including cognitive abilities such as an improved memory or quicker reasoning. The fact that someone else has chosen which capacities to enhance seems irrelevant in these circumstances as far as enhanced person’s autonomy is concerned. Accepting the above leads a the conclusion that redesigning someone so that she has certain enhanced instrumental cognitive or physical capacities which were chosen by others and these capacities make it more likely that she will choose a particular option doesn’t damage her autonomy in circumstance in which this redesign doesn’t affect her remaining capacities and should be permissible. If this wasn’t so then any educational establishment which offered a bursary to a student, which might make it more likely she would pursue an academic career could be said to be damaging her autonomy.

I have argued that any enhancement in circumstances which only enhances some of someone’s instrumental capacities whilst leaving her remaining capacities unchanged doesn’t damage her autonomy and that such a redesign should be permissible. However it is possible to enhance someone’s non-instrumental capacities. I now want to consider whether enhancing these capacities might damage someone’s autonomy. Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have argued that there is a need for widespread moral enhancement in order to counter the existential dangers which our modern world poses (2). Perhaps in order to counter these dangers we should redesign persons so that they have an increased capacity for empathy.  Would such a redesign damage someone’s capacity for autonomy? It might be argued that if we increase someone’s capacity for empathy that this increased capacity would lead to an increased desire to help others which in turn might lead to a decrease in her ability to fully exercise her cognitive abilities. Her increased empathy overwhelms her ability to make autonomous decisions to some degree. If we accept the above then enhancing someone’s capacity for empathy might damage her capacity to make autonomous decisions. What is important in these circumstances is not simply that someone has chosen which capacity to enhance but that by choosing she has altered the relationship between the enhanced person’s capacities to choose or damaged one of them. If we accept the above then it might be concluded that if enhancing some of someone’s capacities alters her remaining capacities to choose or damages them then this enhancement damages her autonomy and this redesign should be impermissible.

Whether we should accept the above conclusion depends on the account of autonomy employed. There are many different accounts of autonomy and I will only consider two accounts here because most other accounts fall somewhere between these accounts for our purposes here even if the details differ. First an autonomous decision might be regarded as a good decision based on what the agent cares about together with some widely accepted norms. If we accept this account then if someone’s enhanced capacity for empathy compromises her ability to accept certain norms then her autonomy is damaged. If we accept this account of autonomy then we might limit any damage to someone’s autonomy by employing a dual enhancement that enhances both empathy and cognition which might lead to increased empathy across a wider domain, see widespread moral enhancement. Secondly an autonomous decision might be regarded as simply as one which accords with what an agent cares about. Clearly if we accept this account and redesign someone in order to increase her empathy we won’t damage her autonomy. I have argued elsewhere that we should adopt this second primitive account of autonomy because if we don’t autonomous decisions simply become good decisions and that we have no need for a separate account of autonomy. If we accept this second account of autonomy then we have no reason based on damaging someone’s autonomy not to enhance her capacity for empathy even if her enhanced empathy overwhelms some of her cognitive capabilities. However in these circumstances doing so would still damage her as a person. Persons have some capacity for reasoning and if we overwhelm this capacity we damage the person involved.

I have summarised the main conclusions which can be drawn from the above below.

·       It should be unacceptable to redesign a person to serve the needs of another.

·       Redesigning persons might create unwarranted inequalities in society. Whether these inequalities mean redesign should be impermissible will depend on the cost and availability of the redesign.

·       Redesigning persons in order to enhance one or more of their capacities whilst leaving the remaining capacities the same does not compromise their capacity for autonomy and should be permissible. Making some option easier to choose is not the same as damaging someone’s capacity to make autonomous decisions.

·       Redesigning persons in order to enhance one or more of their capacities when this enhancement means altering the relationship between her capacities involved in decision making might damage her as a person even if it doesn’t damage her capacity to make autonomous decisions and should be impermissible.

1. Danaher, Mcarthur, and Migotti, 2017 Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications, MIT Press
2. Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu, 2012, UNFIT FOR THE FUTURE, Oxford University Press.

Widespread Moral Enhancement

In my last posting I examined whether we should morally bio-enhance psychopaths. I concluded that we should encourage such enhancement. Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu argue that there is a need for a much more widespread moral enhancement in order to counter the existential dangers our modern world poses (1). They argue that because our morality developed in small communities it is unsuitable for combatting these dangers. I accept that there is a need for such enhancement. In this posting I want to examine how widespread such enhancement needs to be in order to be effective and how such enhancement might be implemented.

Some might argue that if we change our society by becoming more tolerant then we will naturally morally enhance the members of society. If someone lives in a brutal society then she is more likely to act in a brutal manner, whilst if she lives in a tolerant society her toleration is likely to increase. Stephen Pinker argues that this is already be happening (2). I believe society can change people, enhance people, but that this change is extremely slow. The existential dangers we face are pressing and it seems likely that moral enhancement by creating a more tolerant society might be too slow to combat these dangers.

Persson and Savulescu favour moral bio-enhancement. According to them provided such enhancement is proven to be safe then,

“some children should be subjected to moral bio-enhancement, just as they are now subjected to traditional moral education.” (3)

What exactly do Persson and Savulescu mean by moral bio-enhancement? They argue that moral bio-enhancement should seek to increase our dispositions for altruism and justice They argue moral bio-enhancement should do so by making,

 “men in general more moral by bio-medical methods through making them more like the men who are more like women in respect of sympathy and aggression, but without the tendency to social forms of aggression.” (4)

Such bio-enhancement is aimed at changing our dispositions in respect to empathy or sympathy but does not seek to change our cognitive abilities. Let us accept that such enhancement is safe. I now want to examine two questions regarding this form of enhancement. First is it likely to be effective and secondly should such enhancement be mandatory or voluntary.

If we simply enhance our disposition for empathy is such an enhancement likely to combat the dangers facing us? Some have argued that enhancing someone’s empathy simply increases the degree of empathy she feels, but doesn’t expand the domain of her empathy. Paul Bloom questions the benefits of empathy by suggesting that increasing people’s empathy is more likely to increase tension between different groups rather than diminish it. (5) If we accept Bloom is correct then we have reason to believe moral bio-enhancement based solely on enhancing our capacity for empathy would not be very effective. However, I believe there are reasons why dual enhancement involving both our capacity for empathy and cognitive abilities might be more effective, see moral character enhancement . It seems possible that if we enhance our cognitive abilities whilst at the same enhancing our capacity for empathy that such dual enhancement might lead to a broadening of the domain of our moral concern. Bloom holds that it is useful to compare empathy with anger.

“Both are universal responses that emerge in childhood. Both are social, mainly geared toward other people, distinguishing them from emotions such as fear and disgust, which are often elicited by inanimate beings and experiences. Most of all, they are both moral, in that they connect to judgments of right and wrong.” (6)

Judgments are based on the way we view some situation. The way we view some situation depends to some degree on our cognitive abilities. It follows if judgments are similar in some way to empathy that empathy might also depend to some degree on our cognitive abilities. In the light of the above it might be sensible to also enhance our cognitive abilities if we are going to enhance our capacity for empathy.  In the light of the above I would suggest that provided it can be shown that cognitive enhancement enlarges the domain of our empathy that any moral bio-enhancement should be dual enhancement.

Let us accept that dual moral bio-enhancement is desirable and that the means of such enhancement are safe. In these circumstances should such enhancement be mandatory or voluntary? In my previous posting I argued that any moral bio-enhancement of psychopaths should be voluntary in order to respect their autonomy. I will now argue the same is true of more widespread moral bio-enhancement. It might be objected that the need to counter the threats posed by climate change and nuclear armageddon should trump respecting autonomy. Indeed, my objector might point out if we don’t deal with these existential threats there will be few people left whose autonomy we should respect. In response to my objector I would suggest that there is no need to make moral bio-enhancement mandatory in order to counter these threats. It has been assumed that such enhancement has been thoroughly tested and proved to be both safe and effective. In these circumstances it might appear that any decision about becoming morally bio-enhanced is simply a no brainer. Surely we all want to be good people? In response my objector might point out that vaccines have thoroughly tested and proved to be both safe and effective and in spite of this some people refuse to have their children vaccinated even though they desire that their children enjoy good health. She might then argue by analogy that much the same would apply to any moral bio-enhancement. I am prepared to accept that my objector is correct in her assessment that some people would not voluntarily morally bio-enhance themselves. However, I will now argue that her analogy is unsound. For any vaccination program to be effective a high percentage of the population need to be vaccinated. For moral bio-enhancement to be effective, in order to counter existential threats, I would suggest that only a majority of people need take such enhancement in a democracy. A majority is all that is needed to enact legislation to counter these threats. I would further suggest that provided moral bio-enhancement is proven to be safe and effective a majority of people would take it. It follows that even if a substantial minority refuse to take such enhancement that there is no need for such enhancement to be mandatory.

My objector now might raise a further objection. She might argue that cost of such enhancement might deter a majority of people from taking it. If the costs of any bio-enhancement are high then I am prepared to accept my objector’s objection, but I am doubtful whether in practice such costs would be high. If the majority of the population take such enhancement, then these large numbers should lower these costs. However, let us assume I am wrong and that the costs would be high. Let us accept that civilised society has duty to protect both itself and its citizens from anarchy and possible destruction. It follows if society faces anarchy and destruction due to these existential threats which could be avoided by moral bio-enhancement provided the costs of such enhancement were lower, that society should subsidise or freely provide moral bio-enhancement. In addition, such enhancement would carry further benefits for society. If someone is morally bio-enhanced, then it seems probable that she will be less likely to commit crime. More fancifully moral bio-enhancement might reduce the threat of terrorism. Reduced crime would be a saving for society. It follows that society has financial incentives to encourage moral bio-enhancement. In the light of the above it seems improbable that the cost of moral bio-enhancement is going to prevent the majority of people taking it provided it is safe.

In the above it has been assumed that moral bio-enhancement is safe. This assumption may be false because all drugs have some side effects. In these circumstances we would still be faced with existential threats and a morality which seems incapable of addressing these threats. In these circumstances there is a further alternative we might consider. Perhaps we might use algorithms to guide our decision making in response to these threats. It might be objected that the use of algorithms threatens our autonomy. I response I would argue whether this threat is meaningful depends on how we use any such algorithms. I am not suggesting we simply use algorithms to make these difficult decisions for us but rather to guide our decision making. I am suggesting that we might possibly use algorithms in assisting us in making moral decisions. Such assistance should be interactive and the algorithms in question might evolve in response to our interactions. I have dealt with algorithmic assisted moral decision making at greater length in a previous posting. Perhaps using algorithms in such a way does not threaten our autonomy.

1. Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu, 2012, UNFIT FOR THE FUTURE, Oxford University Press.
2. Stephen Pinker, 2011, The Better Angels of our Nature, Viking.
3. Persson & Savulescu, page 113.
4. Persson & Savelescu, page 112.
5. Bloom, Paul. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion (pp. 207-208). Random House.
6. Bloom, page 207.

Psychopaths and Moral Enhancement

 

Michael Cook questions whether psychopaths should be morally bio-enhanced. This posting will examine his question. In attempting to answer Cook’s question I will attempt to answer several related questions. A psychopath might be roughly defined as someone who lacks feelings for others and has no remorse about any of his actions, past or present. A psychopath is someone, who even if he understands moral requirements, does not accept these requirements. In this posting it will be assumed that moral bio-enhancement should be focussed on this non acceptance. The first related question I want to address is whether a psychopath’s non acceptance of moral norms is a form of disability? Secondly I will consider whether any moral bio-enhancement of psychopaths should be mandatory, I will argue it shouldn’t. Thirdly I will consider whether we have a moral duty to offer moral bio-enhancement to someone convicted of some crime due to his non acceptance of moral norms, I will argue we do. Lastly I will suggest if it is permissible to offer moral bio-enhancement to psychopaths there is no reason not to permit moral bio-enhancement more generally.

Let us accept that if someone suffers from a disability and we can mitigate the effects of his disability that we have a prima facie duty to do so provided the costs associated with so doing are not too onerous. Let us also accept that some form of safe moral bio-enhancement becomes possible, such safe enhancement is unavailable at the present time. It appears to follow in such circumstances provided that a psychopath’s failure to accept moral norms is a form of disability that we have a prima facie duty to mitigate the effects of this disability. It further appears to follow that if we can only mitigate this disability by bio-enhancement that we have a duty to do so provided such enhancement is safe. Is a psychopaths non acceptance of moral norms a disability? Most psychopaths are able to understand moral requirements and so their failure to act in accordance with these requirements is not caused by an inability to understand moral norms. It appears to follow that a psychopath’s non acceptance of moral norms is not a disability. This appearance is too simplistic. Let us accept that most psychopaths can understand moral norms even if they don’t accept these norms. Perhaps this lack of acceptance might be due to an inability to feel the force of moral norms and that this inability to feel should be classed as a disability. It follows that a psychopath’s failure to accept moral norms might be regarded as a disability.

Does this moral disability matter? I will now argue whether it matters depends on the context. It has been suggested that some CEO of some large companies have psychopathic tendencies. Having psychopathic tendencies might be seen as enhancing by a CEO whilst the same tendencies might be seen as a disability by someone if they lead to him being imprisoned for some crime. I argued above that if someone suffers from a disability and that we can mitigate the effects of his disability then we have a moral duty to do so, provided the costs associated with doing so are not too onerous. It follows if a psychopath lives in circumstances in which his condition might be classed as a disability he should be morally bio-enhanced. This enhancement should only take place subject to the provision that means used are safe and costs involved aren’t too onerous.

The above conclusion needs some clarification. A psychopath who is the CEO of a large company might not want to be morally enhanced even if his condition disables him in some social contexts. I would suggest that we only have a duty to offer moral enhancement to psychopaths. It might be objected that my suggestion is too weak. My objector might point out that some psychopaths damage society and other people. He might proceed to argue that for such people moral enhancement should be mandatory rather than voluntary due to the need to protect society. I accept that we need to protect people and society from psychopaths but I do not accept we must do so by means of mandatory biomedical moral enhancement. We can protect society from those psychopaths who harm it by restricting their freedom. Let us assume there is a safe bio-medical form of enhancement which prevents psychopaths from committing crimes due to their condition. My objector might now argue that mandatory moral bio-enhancement is both a cheaper and a more humane way of treating psychopaths who have committed crimes than detention. Mandatory moral bio-enhancement would be better for both psychopaths and society.

I would reject such an argument which could easily be extended to include paedophiles. Let us accept most psychopaths retain their autonomy. Unfortunately, whilst exercising their autonomy some psychopaths damage society. My objector wants to limit the damage done to society by removing some of a psychopath’s capacity for autonomy. Is it possible to remove some of someone’s capacity for autonomy? We can of course restrict the exercise of someone’s autonomy but this is not the same as removing some of someone’s capacity for autonomous action. I would suggest that we should limit the damage psychopaths do to society by limiting his ability to exercise his autonomy rather than modifying his autonomy for autonomous action. Some might question whether there is a meaningful difference between these two approaches. I now want to argue there is. If someone’s ability to make autonomous decisions is modified, then he is changed as a person. If someone’s ability to exercise his autonomy is removed, then he is not changed as a person even though the exercise of his will is frustrated. Does the difference between changing someone as a person and frustrating his will matter? If we change someone as a person we treating him simply as a thing. We are treating him in much the same way as something we can own and can do with it as we please. Psychopaths may differ from most of us but they are still human beings and should be treated as such, they should not be treated in the same way as something we own, should not be treated in the same way as an animal. If we frustrate a psychopath’s will by detaining him, we are not treating him as something we own but merely protecting ourselves. We are still accepting him as a person, albeit a damaged person. In the light of the above I would suggest that the mandatory moral bio-enhancement of psychopaths would be wrong. I also would suggest that psychopaths should be offered voluntary moral bio-enhancement. It seems probable most psychopaths would accept such enhancement on a voluntary basis if the alternative might be compulsory detention. Accepting the above would mean that we are still respecting the autonomy of those psychopaths who need to be detained.

I have argued that we should offer voluntary moral bio-enhancement to psychopaths but it is feasible that the exactly the same form of enhancement might be offered to people in general. Prima facie such an enhancement would not be regarded as correcting some disability. It might then be argued that because such enhancement is not correcting any disability that it cannot be argued by analogy that a more general moral bio-enhancement is desirable. I would reject such argument because I don’t believe the prima facie assumption stands up to close examination. Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu suggest we are unfit to face the feature as our morality has not developed enough to permit us to cope with technological progress (1). What exactly does unfit mean? I would suggest being unfit means we are unable to counter some of the dangers created by our technology. If we are unable to do something in some circumstances, then we have an inability, in these circumstances we have a disability. It is conceivable that prior to our most recent technological advances our morality was fit for purpose. It might be argued our morality remains fit for purpose but that these advances have made it difficult for us to accept the full implications of our moral norms disabling us in much the same way psychopaths are disabled. It follows that the prima facie assumption that a more general moral enhancement by bio-medical means should not be regarded as correcting some disability is unsound. It might be concluded that if technological changes make our morality unfit for our purposes by morally disabling people that it can be argued by analogy that more general moral enhancement by bio-medical means is desirable. It might be objected that this conclusion is not the only option available in these circumstances, we might try to change our current circumstances. My objector might suggest that instead of a more general moral enhancement we should reject our most recent technological advances and seek to return to circumstances in which we accept the norms of our evolved morality. Such a suggestion seems impractical for two reasons. First, once the genie is out of the bottle it is hard to put it back in. Secondly I am doubtful if our morality was ever fit for purpose once we ceased being hunter gatherers.

We live in a dangerous world, provided safe moral bio-enhancement becomes available should such enhancement be mandatory? In the light of the dangers we face such an option seems to be an attractive one, but I would somewhat reluctantly reject it. Mandatory moral bio-enhancement would damage our autonomy. Our autonomy forms the basis of us being moral agents and damaging our agency would also damage our moral systems. If safe moral bio-enhancement becomes available, then it should encouraged, perhaps subsidised, but it should remain voluntary.

1. Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu, 2012, UNFIT FOR THE FUTURE, Oxford University Press.

Enhancing Soldiers

In this posting I want to consider the enhancement of soldiers. Such enhancement raises some serious ethical concerns. Concerns such as, do enhanced soldiers have to give their consent to enhancement? Can a soldier refuse enhancement based on ethical grounds such as religious beliefs? Must an enhanced soldier disclose his status to unenhanced soldiers and can an enhanced soldier keep his enhancements upon discharge, see David Shunk . These concerns are for the most part personal concerns for the soldiers concerned. The concerns I want to address in this posting are connected to personality changes that might increase a soldier’s effectiveness.

A soldier’s effectiveness might be enhanced by additions such as better weapons, body armour and communications, such enhancements are discussed by Mike LaBossiere in one of his postings. Other enhancements might change a soldier’s physical prowess. For instance his strength might be increased by steroids and his endurance by stimulants. Filippo Santoni de Sio, Nadira Faulmuller and Nicole Vincent question whether in the future some people such as surgeons and airline pilots might not have a duty to enhance their concentration, provided a safe and efficient means of doing so becomes available, see Frontiers in Neuroscience . In the light of Sio, Faulmuller and Vincent’s analysis it might be suggested that governments have an obligation to enhance their soldiers physical prowess. However I will not consider additions to a soldier’s capabilities or his physical prowess here. I want to consider enhancements that change a soldier’s personality. I will argue that if we only enhance some parts of a soldier’s personality solely in order to make him more effective as a soldier that we create an enhancement gap. The soldier becomes enhanced as a soldier but unenhanced as a person. I will proceed to argue that this type of enhancement harms soldiers, harms society in general, contravenes just war theory and as a result should be morally impermissible.

What sort of enhancements am I concerned with here? Enhanced cognition, awareness and endurance are enhancements that would be useful to a soldier. However such enhancements would be useful to most people. It follows such enhancements would not open up an enhancement gap between soldiers and others. A gap will of course open up between an enhanced soldier and an unenhanced person. However this gap is simply due to the nature of enhancement and not to the specific sort of enhancement linked to soldiering. I want to consider two sorts of enhancements connected to someone’s personality. Firstly increased assertiveness might be useful to a soldier, a timid soldier would be a bad soldier. It follows enhancing a soldiers assertiveness might increase his effectiveness. Secondly increasing a soldier’s focus by decreasing distractions might also increase his effectiveness.

I want to consider the second of these potential enhancements first. Intuitively it might be thought that enhancement always means increasing someone’s capacities but this is not so. Earp, Sandberg, Kahane and Savulescu suggest that if an abused spouse took a drug to decrease her love for her abuser that this might be seen as a form of enhancement, see When is diminishment a form of enhancement? It seems it might be possible to decrease a soldier’s empathy and that this decrease might make him more effective as a soldier. He might for instance follow orders better, have a sharper focus and hence be less likely to be distracted from his task. This diminishment might be seen as an enhancement of a soldier. Such an enhancement by diminishing empathy would only apply to a few people. It would be useful to soldiers and battered spouses, but for most people such a diminishment would lead to a reduction in their capabilities. For most people an increase in empathy would be seen as an enhancement rather than such a reduction. It follows such an enhancement would open up gap between those enhanced by a reduction in their capacity to feel empathy and others.

It might be objected that the enhancement of soldiers by decreasing their empathy is fanciful. Unfortunately this is not so. Fighters connected to Islamic State seem to lack all empathy and this lack seems to make them very effective fighters by spreading terror. An objector might respond by saying this is a local issue and such enhancement would be impossible in more advanced parts of the world. In response I would simply point out that in many of our lifetimes German and Japanese soldiers were encouraged to be ruthless. Let us accept that it is conceivable that reducing a soldier’s empathy might enhance him as soldier.

What would be wrong with such an enhancement? First I would suggest any enhancement based on reducing empathy would be bad for soldiers returning from active service. My objector might point out that if this reduction was achieved by pharmacological means that once a soldier left active service these means could be removed and he would return to normal. It follows that upon leaving active service there would be no gap between him and other members of society. I response I would suggest such a gap remains as the soldier’s memories will remain. These memories will remain his even if he is convinced that the authorities who gave him the enhancing drugs were responsible for his actions. Of course it is conceivable that further pharmacological means might be employed to alleviate these painful memories. I have argued doing this would be wrong, see soldiers and beta blockers , because we shouldn’t split our lives into completely unconnected episodes. Secondly I would suggest that such enhancement would be bad for society by making it difficult to reintegrate soldiers enhanced in this way back into society. Thirdly I would suggest that reducing a soldier’s empathy would seem to run counter to just war theory. One of the tenets of just war theory is that the force employed should be commensurate to the evil and that the use of more force than is strictly necessary would constitute a wrong. Opening up gap between a soldier and the rest of society by reducing his capacity for empathy would also reduce his ability to judge if the force he was using was commensurate in this way. Finally I would suggest that whilst increasing a soldier’s effectiveness might be advantageous in the short term it might be disadvantageous to achieving more long term objectives. Usually after a war a peace must be won.

I now want to consider enhancing a soldier’s effectiveness by increasing his assertiveness. It might be possible to increase a soldier’s effectiveness by increasing his aggression as Tess Gerritsen imagines a pharmaceutical company attempting to do in her novel ‘Bloodstream’. It might be objected that increasing aggression is not the same as increasing assertiveness. Personally I am doubtful whether such a distinction could possibly be made on the battlefield. However for the sake of argument let us assume it is possible to increase a soldier’s assertiveness by pharmacological means and that this increase enhances him as a soldier. It seems to me to do so would reintroduce most of the problems associated with enhancing soldiers by reducing their empathy. Firstly I would suggest that increasing a soldier’s assertiveness would be bad for him on his return from active service. An increase in assertiveness that is not balanced by any increase in empathy would open up a gap between soldiers enhanced in this way and other members of society. This gap will make it hard for him to reintegrate back into society. Secondly this gap will be bad for society because soldiers who can’t reintegrate may well resort to violence, alcohol and drug abuse. Lastly more assertive soldiers might be better at achieving battle aims but the way these aims are achieved might be detrimental to a more long term peace.

To conclude it seems there is nothing wrong with governments enhancing a soldier’s physical capacities. Indeed such enhancement might even be required. However it seems it would be morally impermissible to change a soldier’s personality to enhance him as a soldier. Such an enhancement would open an unacceptable gap between soldiers and others. Such enhanced soldiers would of course remain human beings like the rest of us but their humanity might well be damaged.

Existential threats, Enhancement and Enfranchisement

Many of my postings deal with enhancement. Enhancement is important for two reasons. Firstly some people believe being enhanced will benefit them personally. Some people such as Michael Sandel believe these benefits might be illusory. They believe we should simply accept who we are and feel a sense of giftedness for our natural state. I would suggest that part of our natural state is a desire to improve our circumstances. One way of improving our circumstances is to enhance ourselves. It might then be argued that enhancement is natural for human beings even if some of the methods employed might not be. However this posting for the most part will not be concerned with enhancement for personal reasons. Persson and Savulescu suggest that pharmacological moral enhancement might be necessary if we are to combat existential threats such as global warming (1). Clearly decisions made by us now will have an affect on global warming, will have an affect on the interests of future persons. Persson and Savulescu base their suggestion on the fact we always seem to favour our short term interests. In this posting I want to consider a different means of dealing with such existential threats.

Let us accept that Persson and Savulescu are correct in their assertion that we favour our short term interests. Accepting this means that we must also accept that we might fail to adequately consider the interests of future people. Persson and Savulescu believe that pharmacological moral enhancement would mean that those who are so enhanced would be more likely to consider the interests of their successors. In this posting I will suggest that there is an alternative means of making the present generation more likely to consider the interests of their successors. I will suggest that we should enfranchise future generations.

Children don’t have a vote. However our children will have to deal with the results of our short term attitudes to threats such as global warming or pandemics. Perhaps then our short term attitudes might be alleviated if children had a vote. The extension of the franchise to children is usually known as Demeny voting after Paul Demeny (2). The fact that children have a vote would not mean that they could exercise this vote, this would be a proxy vote exercised by their parents. It would be hoped that a parent when casting a proxy vote on behalf his child would consider that child’s long term interests. It might be objected that this is a too complicated task for a parent as it is hard to judge what is in the long term interests of his child. In response I would point out even if not all of a child’s long term interests are apparent to a parent some are. It is in the interests of any child to live in a world without the dangers associated with global warming, the fear of avoidable pandemics and the threat of nuclear annihilation. It is possible therefore that a parent could consider some of the long term interests of his child when casting a proxy vote on her behalf. Unfortunately I am doubtful as to whether this would occur in practice. Most people understand what is in their long term interests but do not always act in a way that promotes these interests. For instance most people understand being obese is not in their long term interests but continue to eat junk food. It follows if people disregard their own long term interests that they might also disregard the long term interests of their children. Demeny voting might not combat our short term attitudes.

Perhaps if the enfranchisement of our children by Demeny voting fails to adequately address our short-termism then perhaps a more radical form of enhancement might work. Writing in the magazine Aeon Thomas Wells argues that because future people will have interests that will be affected by our current policies that they should have some affect on our election procedures, see votes for the future . Clearly future people cannot affect our election processes directly as they don’t yet exist and we don’t even know how many of them will exist. Their influence as with Demeny voting must be through a proxy. Who or what would be a suitable proxy? Wells suggests that civic organisations, such as charitable foundations, environmentalist advocacy groups or non-partisan think tanks might cast proxy votes. He further suggests that such a block vote might account for 10% of the electorate. Such a scheme might face difficulties in implementation but for the sake of argument I will assume that these difficulties might be overcome. I will also assume that some of the interests of future people are clearly discernible, interests such as living in a world without the dangers associated with global warming, the fear of avoidable pandemics and the threat of nuclear annihilation. It seems to me that such organisations would not be deterred by short term interests from pursuing the interests of future people.

Let us assume we have a duty to consider the interests of future people and that we would be failing in our duty if we left these people a ravished planet as our legacy. The question I now wish to address would pharmacological moral enhancement as suggested by Persson and Savulescu or the radical change to the franchise as suggested by Wells best fulfil this duty? At this juncture I will point out that at the moment there is no safe guaranteed means of pharmacological moral enhancement. Indeed there may never be such a means. It might therefore be assumed that we should be prepared to accept a radical change to the franchise as suggested by Wells to help us fulfil our duty. However it seems to me there are two reasons why moral enhancement might be preferable. Firstly at the beginning of this posting I suggested that our nature causes us to seek to enhance ourselves even if some of the means adopted might be regarded as unnatural by some people. It follows if seeking pharmacological moral enhancement is going to happen anyway that there is no reason to radically change the franchise. Secondly radically changing the franchise to allow the interests of future people are taken into account seems to limit our autonomy. If we freely choose to enhance our morals by pharmacological means then a decision to consider the interests of future people would be an autonomous one. It might be objected that we might only have a natural desire to enhance our cognition and longevity. Perhaps, but it seems to me that we are naturally moral creatures, I may of course be mistaken.

1. Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulesu, 2012, Unfit for the Future, Oxford University Press.
2. Paul Demeny, 1986, Pronatalist Policies in Low-Fertility Countries: Patterns, Performance and Prospects, Population and Development Review, vol. 12

The Structure of Love and Anti-Love Drugs

Brian Earp wonders whether it might be right for someone in certain situations to take an anti-love drug, see should we take anti love drugs? For instance a battered woman in an abusive relationship might take such a drug to help her restore her autonomy and independence. Such an anti-love drug might be seen as an enhancement on a welfarist account of enhancement, see frontiers in neuroscience , because it enhances someone’s overall welfare. I have suggested any such interventions should be treated with the greatest caution as diminishing love involves great dangers. For instance in the above scenario the woman in question might have children and diminishing her love for her abusive partner might also diminish her love for her children. In this posting I will argue that prior to considering any artificial means of diminishing love we must first consider what love is. In particular I will suggest we should consider whether love has some sort of structure.

What does it mean to love? One way of examining what it means to love is to examine what we can love. Someone might love a building, a particular piece of countryside or being a scientist. A mother may love her children and her children love their parents and siblings. Someone may love his friends. Lastly someone may love her beloved in a romantic way. The question I want to pose is this, do we love all these things in much the same way or are there varieties of love and perhaps even completely different ways of loving? What is the nature of the lover’s concern in all the above? According to Harry Frankfurt it is connected to caring about,

“It is in the nature of a lover’s concern that he is invested in his beloved. That is, he is benefited when his beloved flourishes; and he suffers when it is harmed. Another way of putting it is that the lover identifies himself with what he loves. This consists of accepting the interests of his beloved as his own.” (1)

If we agree with Frankfurt then a lover’s concern is compatible with him loving all the above. Someone might be harmed mentally if a building he loves is burnt down. A mother may suffer if her child suffers. A romantic lover will experience pleasure at the success of her beloved. The above suggests that all forms of love have a common basis, the ability to care about and identify with something, and this common basis rules out completely different ways of loving.

Let us accept that all forms of love must include Frankfurt’s basic idea of caring about and identification. Let us also accept that our ancestors possessed the capacity for this basic form of love, they had the capacity to love themselves and their offspring. At this point someone might object that our ancient ancestors didn’t have the capacity to actively identify themselves with what they loved. She might then proceed to argue even today most people don’t actively identify themselves with what they love. In response Frankfurt might argue even if someone doesn’t actively identify himself with what he loves that nonetheless he demonstrates his identification by his satisfaction with what he loves (2). Bennett Helm would argue someone identifies with what he loves by taking pride in what he loves (3). Intuitively there are different forms of love. How might we account for this diversity? Firstly as our ancestors’ lives became more complex the domain of what they loved expanded. That is the basic form of love remained the same but they started to love more things. Perhaps as their increased brains expanded their cognitive powers they simply became aware of the need to love or care about more things. Nonetheless they loved these things in the same way. Secondly as their lives became more complex evolution added or grafted on additional ways of loving onto this basic form. Love acquired some form of structure.

It might be thought that whilst such considerations have considerable theoretical interest they have no practical implications. Such a thought would be wrong. Let us return to the taking of anti-love drugs to enhance an abused women’s life. Now if love has changed simply by expanding the domain of love by cognitive means then any such supposed enhancement would be likely to be counter productive. For as I have remarked above any such so called enhancement would lead her to love her children and things in general, including herself, less. In this context I would suggest that the use of anti-love drugs would be unacceptable.

Intuitively I do not love the place I live in the same way as I love my children. I can feel empathy towards my children but it would be nonsensical to say I can feel empathy for the place I live. Some forms of love might have a structure. This structure consists of the basic capacity to care about and identify with something or someone, plus the capacity to feel empathy. Earp considers love to be based on ancient neurochemical systems that evolved to serve our ancestors' reproductive needs. I have suggested that love has a wider basis. It follows these neurochemical systems served wider needs, the need to love those things that helped us to survive. Nonetheless let us accept that our basic capacity to love is based on a neurochemical system. Let us also accept that our love is defined by a basic capacity to love as I have suggested above plus the capacity to feel empathy. It is possible that the neurochemical system underlying our capacity to feel empathy is distinct from neurochemical system underlying our capacity for basic love. However even if this situation pertains, the use of anti-love drugs would remain unacceptable. Taking an anti-love drug that affects someone’s basic capacity to love would affect her capacity to act as a person. An abused woman taking an anti-love drug which affects her capacity for empathy would damage all her relationships.

However romantic love seems to differ from other forms of love. Most forms of love seem to have more persistence than romantic love. Romantic love might be different from other forms of love. If the above is accepted then some forms of love might have the following structure. Love might consist of the basic capacity to care about and identify with something or someone, plus the capacity to feel empathy, plus the capacity for romantic love. It might then be possible that the neurochemical system underlying our capacity to feel romantic love is distinct from neurochemical systems underlying our capacity for basic love and empathy. If love has this form then it might be possible for an abused woman to take an anti-love drug which affects her capacity for romantic love without damaging her other loving relationships. The above assumes an abused woman’s love for her abusive partner depends on romantic love. In practice many abused women suffer abuse for many years suggesting their love may not be wholly based on romantic love.

I have not been able to answer the specific question as to whether it would be permissible to take anti-love drugs in certain situations. The above however suggests that before we attempt to answer this question we need firstly to investigate whether love has a structure and secondly provided it does investigate whether the neurochemical systems underlying the different elements of this structure are distinct enough to permit the use of these drugs.

1.      Harry Frankfurt, 2006, Taking Ourselves Seriously, Stanford University Press, page 41.

2.      Frankfurt, 1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press. Page 103

3.      Bennett Helm, 2010, Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford.

Effectiveness Enhancement and Motivational Enhancement

Hannah Maslen asks the question as to whether there is an important difference between the enhancement of effectiveness and the enhancement of motivation; see marathon mice and the will to work . In this posting I will examine Maslen’s question and will conclude there is. I will further conclude even if the artificial enhancement of effectiveness is unacceptable that the artificial enhancement of motivation may be acceptable.

In order to examine this question we must first examine what is meant by motivation. Intuitively motivation simply means how much effort we put in to achieving our goals. The greater the effort we put in, the greater our motivation. What do we mean by our motivation? Is motivation something we possess in much the same way as we might possess such things as strength or intelligence? Let us accept there are some means of enhancing our strength and intelligence which are acceptable; after all athletes enhance their strength through training and scholars their intelligence through learning. Let us also accept motivation is something we possess in much the same way as we possess strength or intelligence. Prima facie it follows there are some ways of enhancing our motivation which should be perfectly acceptable.

The above is of course too simplistic. For the sake of argument let us now assume there are some means enhancing strength and intelligence which are unacceptable such as artificial means. If this is so we might agree with Leonard Kass,

“Yet in those areas of human life in which excellence has until now been achieved only by discipline and effort, the attainment of those achievements by means of drugs, genetic engineering, or implanted devices looks to be “cheating” or “cheap.” We believe – or until only yesterday believed – that people should work hard for their achievements. “Nothing good comes easily.” See Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Human Improvement .

Basically it seems to me that Kass’ argument might be summarised as follows. He argues that if we obtain certain goods without any real determination that in so doing we devalue determination in general. In addition, for his argument to work he must believe the damage this does to our determination is not offset by the value of any goods obtained. For the moment let us accept this argument. Let us also assume it is possible to artificially enhance our motivation. It follows there is an important difference between the enhancement of effectiveness and the enhancement of motivation. Enhancing our effectiveness devalues our motivation whilst it is hard to see how enhancing our motivation could devalue motivation. More generally if something is worth enhancing then it must have some value and enhancing this something can only enhance this value. Of course if such an enhancement devalues other goods this devaluation might supply us with a reason not to proceed with the proposed enhancement. For instance Kass believes it would be wrong to enhance our intelligence or strength by artificial means because these enhancements would devalue and eventually damage our motivation. Let us accept that increased determination is a good thing. It follows from the above that it would not be wrong to artificially enhance our determination and hence our motivation provided this enhancement does not damage some other goods. In the case of enhancing our motivation what sort of other goods might we damage? Our determination to be determined? It seems it would be possible for Kass to endorse artificially enhancing our motivations whilst at the same time maintaining it would be wrong to artificially enhance more general goods such as our strength or intelligence and still remain consistent. Personally I doubt that Kass would make such an endorsement.

What sort of objection to the above might an objector such as Kass raise? He might suggest that artificially enhancing someone’s motivations would damage her authenticity as a person. What does it mean to be authentic? Intuitively an authentic person is one who is true to her self. An authentic person is someone who is not easily swayed by short term emotions or the views of others. I have argued in previous posts that a person is defined by what she cares about, what she takes pride in. It follows that anyone who is a person must care about or love something. I would suggest how authentic a person is depends on how she acts with regard to what she cares about or takes pride in. Enhancing someone’s motivation, her determination, does not change what she cares about. Moreover enhancing someone’s motivation increases her disposition to act with regard to what she cares about. It follows enhancing someone’s determination does not damage her authenticity. Accepting the above means it might even be argued enhancing someone’s motivation does not damage her authenticity and might possibly enhance it.

However my objector might respond by pointing out I have been treating our motivation in a purely instrumental way. He might proceed to suggest our motivations form part of who we are. He might then maintain accepting the above means that artificially enhancing our motivations might still damage our authenticity as a person. I am inclined to accept our motivations are part of who we are. Our motivations might have both intrinsic and instrumental value to us. Personally I hope I am a reasonably determined person and take some pride in my determination. I would argue if someone is proud of some personal attribute then she must care about that attribute and as a result that attribute helps define her as a person. If someone fails to act in a determined way when she cares about something she will be ashamed of herself. Let us accept that our motivations are not purely instrumental but have some intrinsic value for us. Let us further accept that some people care about their motivations and that this means these motivations help to form them as persons. It follows our motivations can be part of our authentic self. Does this acceptance mean we shouldn’t artificially enhance our motivation? People seek to change themselves by enhancing themselves by training or learning. I can see of no reason why people changing themselves by these means will render themselves in-authentic. Perhaps, as suggested above, we shouldn’t do this by artificial means because doing so might damage our motivation. However I can see no reason why someone shouldn’t change herself by artificially enhancing her motivation because doing so might damage her authenticity. In practice I have some remaining doubts but perhaps these might be based on some unjustified arrogance on my part.

Autonomy and Love Enhancement

In a paper Earp, Sandberg and Savulescu suggest individual couples should be free to use pharmacological interventions, provided these interventions allow us to keep our values and our environment intact, to sustain and improve their romantic connection. They then proceed to suggest some parents might have an obligation to do so in order to enhance their relationships for the sake of their children. They further suggest that this might be done by the use of “love drugs” such as oxytocin. Their arguments run as follows. First they argue,

1)      Parents have an obligation to protect their children from harm, all else being equal.

2)      Marriage breakdown, and especially outright divorce, is harmful to children.

3)      Therefore parents have an obligation (all else being equal) to preserve and enhance their relationships—for the sake of their offspring.

They then proceed to argue,

1)      Parents have an obligation (all else being equal) to preserve and enhance their relationships for the sake of their offspring.

2)      In many cases, the only way to do this is through pharmacological intervention, in conjunction with other more conventional strategies like couple’s therapy.

In assessing this argument it is crucial to understand what is meant by all else being equal. I will assume that all else being equal means any pharmacological intervention must have no damaging physiological or psychological side effects. However it also seems the authors believe all else being equal also means our keeping values and our environment intact. In what follows I will firstly argue such a belief is mistaken. I will then consider the implications of this mistake for the argument as a whole.

Firstly it is clear any love drug must of necessity change the environment we live in if it is to be effective. Such drugs will not of course change our physical environment but they will change our psychological environment. If parents live in a psychological environment characterised by lots of minor discords, waning love and a general unhappiness then love drugs should change this environment. Indeed the whole point of parents taking love drugs is to change their psychological environment in order to stop them divorcing. However people take anti-depressants all the time in order to change their psychological environment with no ill effects. This suggests to me the fact that someone who takes love drugs will have her environment changed is not a reason to reject Earp, Sandberg and Savulescu’s argument.

Does the taking of love drugs change someone’s values? Change in the context of values could have two meanings. Firstly change might means someone acquires new values or loses some of her existing ones. Secondly change could mean she alters the priorities she gives to her existing values. Let us assume someone’s values are linked to what she cares about. Let us further assume her identity as a particular person depends on what she cares about, upon her values. It follows if she acquires new values or loses some of her existing values she alters her identity to some degree. However I would argue someone’s identity is tied not only to those values she possesses but also to the priorities she gives to these values. For instance someone might value both being a mother and being good teacher. However someone who values being a mother first and a teacher second has a different identity to someone who reverses these priorities. It follows if someone changes the priorities she gives to her values she also changes her identity. The taking of love drugs does not appear to change someone’s values using my first meaning. However the purpose someone has in taking of love drugs would be to change the priorities she assigns to her various values in order to benefit her children. It follows the taking of love drugs changes someone’s values using the second meaning of change outlined above. It further follows the taking of love drugs changes someone’s identity.

If we accept that someone taking love drugs will have her identity altered does this give us a reason to reject Earp, Sandberg and Savulescu’s argument? It might be concluded the taking of these drugs would make someone inauthentic and this fact alone gives us reason to reject the authors’ argument. However such a conclusion seems premature. Just becoming a parent might also change someone’s identity and alter her values. Indeed it might not only alter the priorities someone assigns to her values but generate new values. The fact someone’s identity sometimes changes over time is natural and should usually give us no cause for concern. Someone might accept that natural changes in our identity do not give us cause for concern but object that the taking of love drugs is unnatural. In response I would suggest simply talking about something being natural or artificial is not really helpful; it doesn’t really do any work. My objector might respond by arguing what really matters is the way the change is caused. I accept her point. I further accept if love drugs alone cause a change in someone’s identity that their use is unacceptable and that we should reject Earp, Sandberg and Savulescu’s argument because of the damage these drugs do to her autonomy.

However I am reluctant to accept love drugs alone cause a change in someone’s identity. After all someone doesn’t just take a drug randomly with no purpose in mind. She takes a drug for a purpose and it follows she uses the drug instrumentally. In what follows I will argue firstly that love drugs might enable a parent to make a better decision and secondly these drugs might enable a parent carry out a previously made autonomous decision. Prima facie it might appear there is no reason as to why the taking of a love drug might enable us to better decision. However the truth of this appearance depends on how a specific drug works. Some drugs enhance our cognition. It seems plausible that a cognition enhancing drug might permit parents to see beyond their short term marital problems and see that remaining married will give them greater satisfaction in the long term as well as benefiting their children. Indeed studies have shown oxytocin, a potential love drug, is involved in nursing behaviour, trust, and mind-reading (1). If oxytocin enhances mind reading it enhances cognition and might enable parents to make better marital decisions resulting in fewer divorces and less harm to their children. Moreover the taking of such a love drug might be seen as enhancing rather than damaging someone’s autonomy.

I now want to consider the situation when love drugs might be seen as enabling someone to enact her previously made autonomous decision. Let us return to my example of someone who is both a mother and teacher. Let us assume she desperately wants to be a good mother but finds it hard to bond with her child and gives far greater priority to her teaching. Let us also assume after some reflection she makes an autonomous decision to shed some of her teaching load in order to become a better mother. Let us still further assume she still finds it difficult to implement this decision and bond with her child. After some further reflection she makes an autonomous decision to take oxytocin to enable to enact her previously made autonomous decision. Prima facie it appears the taking of a love drug has once again enhanced rather than damaged someone’s autonomy and we have no reason to reject Earp, Sandberg and Savulescu’s argument. However I have some reservations about accepting this appearance.

My first reservation is connected to what sort of autonomy we want to respect. Let us accept the mother’s decision to take oxytocin is an autonomous one. However it is perfectly possible for someone to make an autonomous decision which has the result of damaging her capacity for autonomy. One can decide to take heroin or perhaps more realistically a terminally ill patient might decide to commit suicide. Is it possible that a love drug such as oxytocin might also damage someone’s capacity for autonomy? Perhaps such a drug might bind someone so close to her partner that this affects some of the other things she cares about and perhaps even her cognitive judgements. Of course if we give priority to respecting someone’s autonomous decision over preserving her capacity for autonomy this reservation becomes groundless. Personally I favour respecting autonomous decisions over respecting someone’s capacity for autonomy. For instance if we respect a terminally ill cancer patient’s capacity for autonomy rather than her autonomous decision to die then she might be left with her capacity for autonomy but use it only to make decisions to die which she is prevented from implementing.

My second reservation concerns whether a mother’s decision to love her child more is always truly autonomous. Let us accept she had all the relevant facts and was un-coerced. Moreover she was under no pressure from her partner, friends or grandparents. It might be thought by many the mother’s decision was clearly autonomous. However the fact that she needed to take oxytocin to implement her decision suggests this might not be so. I would agree with Frankfurt that for her to make an autonomous decision means she has to come to care about certain things and she must come to care about some of them more than others rather than simply reflect upon her decision (2). Frankfurt uses the example of a mother who after some reflection decides it would be in the best interests of her child if he was adopted. However when the moment for adoption comes she cannot go through with her decision. Her purely reflective decision was one she was unable to implement because she discovered what she truly cared about (3). Helm also holds that we sometimes discover our values rather than reach them purely through reflection (4). I would question whether, if the mother in the above example took love inhibiting drugs to enable her to let her child be adopted, we would say these love inhibitors enhanced her autonomy. Indeed it might be argued these inhibitors damaged her autonomy. The above example of course does not show love drugs might damage someone’s autonomy but it does support my reservations and emphasises the need for caution.

1. Domes, G., Heinrichs, M., Michel, A., Berger, C. & Herpertz, S. C. (2007) Oxytocin improves “mind-reading” in humans. Biological Psychiatry 61, 731–733.
2. Frankfurt H, 1988, The Importance of What We Care About. Cambridge University Press, page 91.

3.      Frankfurt H, 1999, Necessity, Volition, and Love. Cambridge University Press, page 111.

4.      Bennett Helm, 2010, Love, Friendship & the Self, Oxford University Press, page 131.

---