Neuroethics

pp 1–16 | Cite as

Why Internal Moral Enhancement Might Be politically Better than External Moral Enhancement

Original Paper

Abstract

Technology could be used to improve morality but it could do so in different ways. Some technologies could augment and enhance moral behaviour externally by using external cues and signals to push and pull us towards morally appropriate behaviours. Other technologies could enhance moral behaviour internally by directly altering the way in which the brain captures and processes morally salient information or initiates moral action. The question is whether there is any reason to prefer one method over the other? In this article, I argue that there is. Specifically, I argue that internal moral enhancement is likely to be preferable to external moral enhancement, when it comes to the legitimacy of political decision-making processes. In fact, I go further than this and argue that the increasingly dominant forms of external moral enhancement (algorithm-assisted enhancement) may already be posing a significant threat to political legitimacy, one that we should try to address. Consequently, research and development of internal moral enhancements should be prioritised as a political project.

Keywords

Moral enhancement Extended mind Ethical parity principle Political legitimacy 

References

  1. 1.
    Savulescu, J., and I. Persson. 2012. Moral Enhancement, Freedom and the God Machine. The Monist 95(3): 399–421 (page references are to the online version, available open access at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431130/pdf/ukmss-49380.pdf - accessed 3/4/15).
  2. 2.
    Persson, I., and J. Savulescu. 2012. Unfit for the future. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parens, E. 2014. Shaping our selves. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pacholczyk, A. and Harris, J. (2012) Dignity and Enhancement. In Nathan J Palpant and Stephen C Dilley (eds), Human Dignity in Bioethics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raus, K., et al. 2014. On defining moral enhancement: a Clarificatory taxonomy. Neuroethics 7: 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Savulescu, J., A. Sandberg, and G. Kahane. 2011. Well-being and enhancement. In Enhancing human capacities, eds. J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, and G. Kahane, 3–18. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sunstein, C., and R. Thaler. 2008. Nudge: improving decisions about health. Wealth and Happiness: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Selinger, E. (2014a) The Outsourced Lover. The Atlantic 14 February 2014 – available at http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/the-outsourced-lover/283833/ (accessed on 8/7/2016).
  9. 9.
    Selinger, E. (2014b) Today’s Apps are Turning Us Into Sociopaths. 26 February 2014 – available at http://www.wired.com/2014/02/outsourcing-humanity-apps/ (accessed on 8/7/2016)
  10. 10.
    Harris, J. 2007. Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Agar, N. 2013. Truly human enhancement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levy, N. 2007a. Neuroethics: challenges for the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levy, N. 2007b. Rethinking neuroethics in light of the extended mind thesis. American Journal of Bioethics 7(9): 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levy, N. 2011. Neuroethics and the extended mind. In Oxford handbook of neuroethics, eds. B. Sahakian, and J. Illes. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clark, A., and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58(1): 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark, A. 2010. Supersizing the mind. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farkas, K. 2012. Two versions of the extended mind thesis. Philosophica 40: 435–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Craver, C. 2007. Explaining the brain. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jaworski, W. 2011. Philosophy of mind: a comprehensive introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parens, E. 1998. Is better always good? In Parens (ed) Enhancing Human Traits. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    DeMarco, J., and P. Ford. 2014. Neuroethics and the ethical parity principle. Neuroethics 7: 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Michaelian, K. 2012. Is external memory memory? Biological memory and the extended mind. Consciousness and Cognition 21(3): 1154–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schermer, M., and F. Focquaert. 2015. Moral enhancement: do means matter morally? Neuroethics 8(2): 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maslen, H., J. Pugh, and J. Savulescu. 2015. The ethics of deep brain stimulation for the treatment of anorexia nervosa. Neuroethics 8(3): 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peter, F. (2014) Political Legitimacy. In Edward N. Zalta (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Spring 2014 Edition -- available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/legitimacy/
  26. 26.
    Gaus, G. 2010. The order of public reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peter, F. 2008. Pure Epistemic Proceduralism. Episteme 5: 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Habermas, J. (1990). Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification. In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Christian Lenhart and Shierry Weber Nicholson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Danaher, J. (2016a). The threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation. Philosophy and Technology. DOI: 10.1007/s13347-015-0211-1
  30. 30.
    Burrell, J. 2016. How the machine ‘thinks’: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data and Society doi. doi:10.1177/2053951715622512.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kitchin, R. 2016. Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information Communications Science. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pasquale, F. 2015. The black box society: the secret algorithms and that control money and information. Harvard: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parasuraman, R., and D.H. Manzey. 2010. Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Human Factors 52(3): 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carr, N (2015) The glass cage: Where automation is taking us. London: The Bodley Head.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van Nimwegen, C. et al (2006). The Paradox of the Assisted User: Guidance can be Counterproductive. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 917–926.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morozov, E. (2013). The Real Privacy Problem. MIT Technology Review (available at: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520426/the-real-privacy-problem/ - accessed 1/3/15).
  37. 37.
    Lupton, D. 2016. The quantified self. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Frischmann, B. (2014). Human Focused Turing Tests: A Framework for Judging Nudging and the Techno-Social Engineering of Human Beings. Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 44 – available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2499760 (accessed 8/7/2016).
  39. 39.
    Pereboom, D. 2014. Free will, agency and meaning in life. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawNUI GalwayGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations