Skip to main content

What to Enhance: Behaviour, Emotion or Disposition?

Neuroethics volume 7, pages 253–261 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

As we learn more about the human brain, novel biotechnological means to modulate human behaviour and emotional dispositions become possible. These technologies could be used to enhance our morality. Moral bioenhancement, an instance of human enhancement, alters a person’s dispositions, emotions or behaviour in order to make that person more moral. I will argue that moral bioenhancement could be carried out in three different ways. The first strategy, well known from science fiction, is behavioural enhancement. The second strategy, favoured by prominent defenders of moral bioenhancement, is emotional enhancement. The third strategy is the enhancement of moral dispositions, such as empathy and inequity aversion. I will argue that we ought to implement a combination of the second and third strategies. Furthermore, I will argue that the usual arguments against other instances of human enhancement do not apply to moral bioenhancement, or apply only to the first strategy, behavioural enhancement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Of course any psychological change also affects the underlying physiology of the person so affected.

  2. Some instances of cognitive behaviour therapy would here qualify as “moral education”.

  3. Pathological cases might include patients with brain injury, brain tumours, and cases with severe deficiencies in critical neurotransmitters or people suffering from grave hormonal imbalances.

  4. Whether or not personality disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder, are pathologies is a matter of debate. I will leave this question open.

  5. An existential disaster is defined as an event that would drastically and permanently curtail the potential of terrestrial intelligence. [6], pp 1–27.

  6. It should be noted that his views are not uncontroversial. See Cordelia Fine’s book Delusions of Gender for a review [23].

  7. For a counter-argument, see [44] and [3] for a response.

  8. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article 7—The Virtues, I. The human virtues: number 1827, http://www.catholicdoors.com/catechis/cat1803.htm.

  9. However, it should be noted that not all Aristotelian philosophers agree that effort is a necessary aspect of true virtue.

References

  1. Kamm, Frances. 2006. What is and is not wrong with enhancement? SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 902372. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=902372.

  2. Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2013a. Getting moral enhancement right: The desirability of moral bioenhancement. Bioethics 27(3): 124–131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01907.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2013b. Should moral bioenhancement be compulsory? Reply to Vojin Rakic. Journal of Medical Ethics: medethics–2013–101423. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101423.

  4. Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2010. Moral transhumanism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35(6): 656–669. doi:10.1093/jmp/jhq052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2008. The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25(3): 162–177. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00410.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bostrom, Nick, and Milan M. Ćirković. 2008. Global catastrophic risks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bostrom, Nick. 2003. Astronomical waste: The opportunity cost of delayed technological development. Utilitas 15(03): 308–314. doi:10.1017/S0953820800004076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Matheny, Jason G. 2007. Reducing the risk of human extinction. Risk Analysis 27(5): 1335–1344. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00960.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crockett, Molly J., Luke Clark, Marc D. Hauser, and Trevor W. Robbins. 2010. Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 201009396. doi:10.1073/pnas.1009396107.

  10. Dreu, Carsten K.W., Lindred L. De, Michel J.J. Greer, Shaul Shalvi Handgraaf, Gerben A. Van Kleef, Matthijs Baas, Femke S. Ten Velden, Eric Van Dijk, and Sander W.W. Feith. 2010. The Neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans. Science 328(5984): 1408–1411. doi:10.1126/science.1189047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kosfeld, Michael, Markus Heinrichs, Paul J. Zak, Urs Fischbacher, and Ernst Fehr. 2005. Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature 435(7042): 673–676. doi:10.1038/nature03701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sidgwick, Henry. 1981. The methods of ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Van Gompel, J. Jamie, Su-Youne Chang, J. Stephan, In. Yong Goerss, Christopher Kimble Kim, Kevin E. Bennet, and Kendall H. Lee. 2010. Development of intraoperative electrochemical detection: Wireless instantaneous neurochemical concentration sensor for deep brain stimulation feedback. Neurosurgical Focus 29(2): E6. doi:10.3171/2010.5.FOCUS10110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harris, John. 2013. Moral progress and moral enhancement. Bioethics 27(5): 285–290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01965.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Douglas, Thomas. 2008. Moral enhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25(3): 228–245. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00412.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bernhard, Helen, Urs Fischbacher, and Ernst Fehr. 2006. Parochial altruism in humans. Nature 442(7105): 912–915. doi:10.1038/nature04981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Seymour, Ben, Tania Singer, and Ray Dolan. 2007. The neurobiology of punishment. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 8(4): 300–311. doi:10.1038/nrn2119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fehr, Ernst, and Simon Gächter. 2002. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415(6868): 137–140. doi:10.1038/415137a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Baron, Jonathan. 2011. Utilitarian emotions: Suggestions from introspection. Emotion Review 3(3): 286–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Singer, Peter. 2009. The life you can save: Acting now to end world poverty. Melbourne: Text Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Singer, Tania, and Claus Lamm. 2009. The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1156: 81–96. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04418.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baron-Cohen, Simon. 2012. Zero degrees of empathy: A new theory of human cruelty. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fine, Cordelia. 2010. Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Batson, C. Daniel, and Laura L. Shaw. 1991. Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry 2(2): 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Eisenberg, N. 2000. Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology 51: 665–697. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Slote, Michael A. 2010. Moral sentimentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Knafo, Ariel, Carolyn Zahn-Waxler, Carol Van Hulle, JoAnn L Robinson, and Soo Hyun Rhee. 2008. The developmental origins of a disposition toward empathy: Genetic and environmental contributions. Emotion (Washington, D.C.) 8(6): 737–52. doi:10.1037/a0014179.

  28. Donaldson, Zoe R., and Larry J. Young. 2008. Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of sociality. Science (New York, N.Y.) 322(5903): 900–904. doi:10.1126/science.1158668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Prinz, Jesse J. 2011. Is empathy necessary for morality. In Empathy: Philosophical and psychological perspectives, 211–29. Oxford University Press.

  30. Sally, David, and Elisabeth L. Hill. 2006. The development of interpersonal strategy: Autism, theory-of-mind, cooperation and fairness. Journal of Economic Psychology 27(1): 73–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Takagishi, Haruto, Shinya Kameshima, Joanna Schug, Michiko Koizumi, and Toshio Yamagishi. 2010. Theory of mind enhances preference for fairness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 105(1–2): 130–137. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fehr, Ernst, and Klaus M. Schmidt. 1999. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(3): 817–868. doi:10.1162/003355399556151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Brosnan, Sarah F., and Frans B.M. de Waal. 2003. Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature 425(6955): 297–299. doi:10.1038/nature01963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bird, Geoffrey, Giorgia Silani, Rachel Brindley, Sarah White, Uta Frith, and Tania Singer. 2010. Empathic brain responses in insula are modulated by levels of alexithymia but not autism. Brain 133(5): 1515–1525. doi:10.1093/brain/awq060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kennett, Jeanette. 2002. Autism, empathy and moral agency. The Philosophical Quarterly 52(208): 340–357. doi:10.1111/1467-9213.00272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. McGreer, Victoria. 2008. Varieties of moral agency: Lessons from autism (and psychopathy). In Moral psychology, Volume 3. MIT Press.

  37. Güroğlu, Berna, Wouter van den Bos, Eric van Dijk, Serge A.R.B. Rombouts, and Eveline A. Crone. 2011. Dissociable brain networks involved in development of fairness considerations: Understanding intentionality behind unfairness. NeuroImage 57(2): 634–641. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.04.032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhong, Songfa, Salomon Israel, Idan Shalev, Hong Xue, Richard P. Ebstein, and Soo Hong Chew. 2010. Dopamine D4 receptor gene associated with fairness preference in ultimatum game. PLoS ONE 5(11): e13765. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Carter, J. Adam, and Emma C. Gordon. 2013. On cognitive and moral enhancement: A reply to Savulescu and Persson. Bioethics. doi:10.1111/bioe.12076.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Miller, Webb, Daniela I. Drautz, Aakrosh Ratan, Barbara Pusey, Ji. Qi, Arthur M. Lesk, Lynn P. Tomsho, et al. 2008. Sequencing the nuclear genome of the extinct woolly mammoth. Nature 456(7220): 387–390. doi:10.1038/nature07446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Harris, John. 2011. Moral enhancement and freedom. Bioethics 25(2): 102–111. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01854.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sallquist, Julie, Eisenberg Nancy, Tracy L. Spinrad, Natalie D. Eggum, and Bridget M. Gaertner. 2009. Assessment of preschoolers’ positive empathy: concurrent and longitudinal relations with positive emotion, social competence, and sympathy. The Journal of Positive Psychology 4(3): 223–233. doi:10.1080/17439760902819444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2012. Unfit for the future: The need for moral enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199653645.001.0001/acprof-9780199653645.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Rakić, Vojin. 2013. Voluntary moral enhancement and the survival-at-any-cost bias. Journal of Medical Ethics: medethics–2012–100700. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100700.

  45. Bostrom, Nick, and Toby Ord. 2006. The reversal test: Eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics 116(4): 656–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Damasio, A.R. 1996. The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 351(1346): 1413–1420. doi:10.1098/rstb.1996.0125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bostrom, Nick, and Anders Sandberg. 2009. Human enhancement, and Julian Savulescu. In The wisdom of nature: An evolutionary heuristic for human enhancement.

  48. Kant, Immanuel. 2012. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Singer, Peter. 1981. The expanding circle: Ethics and sociology. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Teknikringen 78B, 114 28, Stockholm, Sweden

    Karim Jebari

Authors
  1. Karim Jebari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karim Jebari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jebari, K. What to Enhance: Behaviour, Emotion or Disposition?. Neuroethics 7, 253–261 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9204-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9204-5

Keywords

  • Human enhancement
  • Moral bioenhancement
  • Freedom
  • Neuroethics
  • Empathy