Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Moral Bioenhancement, Social Biases, and the Regulation of Empathy

  • 220 Accesses

Abstract

Some proponents of moral bioenhancement propose that people should utilize biomedical practices to enhance the faculties and traits that are associated with moral agency, such as empathy and a sense of justice. The hope is that doing so will improve our ability to meet the moral challenges that have emerged in our contemporary, globalized world. In this paper, we caution against this view by arguing that biomedically inducing more empathy may, in fact, diminish moral agency. We argue that this type of increase in empathy would not be effective for addressing empathy’s vulnerability to the biases that can undermine moral judgment. Furthermore, doing so may undermine the important capacity to regulate empathy. We determine that if the moral enhancement project is to be a serious one, it must address these challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this paper we focus on the role of empathy because per our interpretation of Persson and Savulescu’s argument, empathy is central to their ideas on moral bioenhancement. They do, however, include the value altruism in their argument. But in their argument (2013), Persson and Savulescu note that claims about empathy and claims about altruism are equivalent.

  2. 2.

    We might reasonably say that some partiality in empathy is morally appropriate when it comes to family and close friends, though we might also argue that such commitments should have their limits. Even if it were the case that biomedical enhancement somehow leveled out the ways in which we empathize, there is little reason to believe that it would improve our ability to discern the proper limits to empathy, or that such a leveling out would happen in a way that accords with any particular view of what is morally right.

  3. 3.

    This study finds that health care workers who frequently encounter emotional demands through their contact with suffering patients are less likely to experience burnout when they consider their patients’ emotions in terms of basic emotions, as opposed to more uniquely human emotions.

  4. 4.

    As Johanna Shapiro (2012) notes, significant medical bodies including The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the Association of American Medical Colleges have identified empathy as a key component in professionalism. For overviews of the literature detailing the benefits of empathy in medical practice, see Halpern (2012) and Zenasni et al. (2012).

References

  1. De Waal FBM (2008) Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy. Annu Rev Psychol 59:279–300

  2. De Dreu CKW, Greer LL, Van Kleef GA, Shalvi S, MJJ Handgraaf (2011) Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(4):1262–1266

  3. Decety J (2010) The neurodevelopment of empathy in humans. Dev Neurosci 32:257–267

  4. Decety J, Lamm C (2009) Empathy versus personal distress—Recent evidence from social neuroscience. In: Decety J, Ickes WJ (eds) The social neuroscience of empathy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 199–213

  5. Duberstein P, Meldrum S, Fiscella K, Shields CG, Epstein RM (2007) Influences on patients’ ratings of physicians: physicians demographics and personality. Patient Educ Couns 65(2):270–274

  6. Ellis HC, Ashbrook PW (1988) Resource allocation model of the effects of depressed mood states on memory. In: Fiedler K, Forgas J (eds) Affect, cognitive and social behavior. Hogrefe, Toronto, pp 25–43

  7. Epstein RM, Hadee T, Carroll J, Meldrum SC, Lardner J, Shields CG (2007) “Could this be something serious?” Reassurance, uncertainty, and empathy in response to patients’ expressions of worry. J Gen Intern Med 22(12):1731–1739

  8. Gleichgerrcht E, J Decety (2012) The costs of empathy among health professionals. In: Decety Jean (ed) Empathy: from bench to bedside. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 245–261

  9. Halpern J (2001) From detached concern to empathy. Oxford University Press, New York

  10. Halpern J (2012) Clinical empathy in medical care. In: Decety J (ed) Empathy: from bench to bedside. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 229–244

  11. Harris J (2011). Moral enhancement and freedom. Bioethics, 25(2), 102–111.

  12. Harris J, Savulescu J (2015) How moral is (moral) enhancement: a debate about moral enhancement. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 24:8–22

  13. Hoffman ML (2000) Empathy and moral development: implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  14. Hojat M, MJ Vergare, K Maxwell, G Brainard, SK Herrine, GA Isenberg, J Veloski, JS Gonnella (2009) The devil is in the third year: a longitudinal study of erosion of empathy in medical school. Acad Med 84(9):1182–1191

  15. Johnson JD, SImmons CH (2002) Rodney King and O.J. Revisited: the impact of race and defendant empathy induction on judicial decisions. J Appl Soc Psychol 32(6):1208–1223

  16. Levy N, Douglas T, Kahane G, Terbeck S, Cowen PJ, Hewstone M, Savulescu J (2014) Are you morally modified?: the moral effects of widely used pharmaceuticals. Philos Psychiatry Psychol 21(2):111–125

  17. Maibom HL (2014) Empathy and morality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  18. Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP (1996) Maslach burnout inventory manual, 3rd edn. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA

  19. Meyer ML, CL Masten, Y Ma, C Wang, Z Shi et al. (2013) Empathy for the social suffering of friends and strangers recruits distinct patterns of brain activation. Scan, 8, 446–454

  20. Montgomery A (2014) The inevitability of physician burnout: Implications for interventions. Burn Res 1(1), 50–56

  21. Persson I, Savulescu J (2008) The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. J Appl Philos 25:162–177

  22. Persson I, Savulescu J (2011) Unfit for the future? Human nature, scientific progress, and the need for moral enhancement, In: J Savulescu, R ter Meulen G Kahane, eds. Enhancing human capabilities, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell

  23. Persson I, Savulescu J (2012a). Moral enhancement. Philos Now, 91, 6–8

  24. Persson I, Savulescu J (2012b) Moral enhancement, freedom, and the God machine. Monist 95(3):399–421

  25. Persson I, Savulescu J (2013). Getting moral enhancement right: the desirability of moral bioenhancement. Bioethics 23(3): 124–131

  26. Sandberg A, Savulescu J (2011). The social and economic impacts of cognitive enhancement, In: J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, G. Kahane, eds., Enhancing human capacities, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing

  27. Savulescu J, Sandberg A, Kahane G (2011) Well-being and enhancement. In: Savulescu J, ter Meulen R, Kahane G (eds) Enhancing human capacities. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp 3–18

  28. Shapiro J (2012) The paradox of teaching empathy in medical education. In: Decety J (ed) Empathy: from bench to bedside. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 275–290

  29. Sultan HO, A Waytz (2011) Why doctors should be more empathetic—but not too much more. Scientific American. April 26. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/doctors-and-dehumanization-effect/.

  30. Vaes J, Muratore M (2013) Defensive dehumanization in the medical practice: a cross-sectional study from a health care worker’s perspective. Br J Soc Psychol 52(1):180–190

  31. Zenasni F, Boujut E, Woerner A, Sultan S (2012) Burnout and empathy in primary care: three hypotheses. Br J Gen Pract 62(600):346–347

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Keisha Ray.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ray, K., Castillo, L.G. Moral Bioenhancement, Social Biases, and the Regulation of Empathy. Topoi 38, 125–133 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-017-9468-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Moral enhancement
  • Morality
  • Empathy
  • Empathy deficits
  • Biases
  • Regulation