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.
