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.
