Skip to main content

Moral Neuroenhancement for Prisoners of War

Neuroethics volume 15, Article number: 15 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Moral agential neuroenhancement (MANE) can transform us into better people. However, critics of MB raise four central objections to MANEs use: (1) It destroys moral freedom; (2) it kills one moral agent and replaces them with another, better agent; (3) it carries significant risk of infection and illness; (4) it benefits society but not the enhanced person; and (5) it’s wrong to experiment on nonconsenting persons. Herein, I defend MANE’s use for prisoners of war (POWs) fighting unjustly. First, the permissibility of killing unjust combatants entails that, in cases where MANE is equally or more likely as termination to reduce moral recidivism in unjust combatants, then MANE is morally justified. Second, the relevant infections and illnesses caused by MANE are less bad than death, so MANE leaves unjust POWs better off than the alternative. Third, just as incarceration is often permissible despite benefitting society but not the incarcerated, the same holds for unjust POWs. Fourth, we should accept a broader construal of “benefit” that includes moral benefits. Thus, 3 and 4 are false when applied to unjust POWs. Fifth, medical experimentation likely to help nonconsenting persons is sometimes permissible. Because MANE is likely to help unjust POWs irrespective of their consent or lack thereof, its use is permissible. Sixth, basic principles of proper medical care support the use of MANE on unjust POWs as pro tanto morally obligatory. I conclude that militaries should therefore begin to employ MANE for unjust POWs.

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. I’m grateful to an anonymous reviewer at Neuroethics for pointing these out.

  2. This latter argument builds on Sarah Carter’s [43] defense of moral biotherapy. I explain and explicitly build on Carter’s view in the “Targeting Moral Enhancement” section.

  3. Cf. Earp et al. [85] for the original definition.

  4. My thanks to an anonymous reviewer for making this point.

  5. For a more recent overview of the promising nature of TMS, see Jung and Lambon Ralph [86] and Bleich-Cohen et al. [87].

  6. For an overview, see Kamieński [88] and Macpherson et al. [89], Table 1, 998–999.

  7. Brian Earp [29] cautions that neurochemical interventions are unlikely to work if administered involuntarily, but rather “would most likely foster states of mind that allowed one to engage with the moral domain in a more productive or insightful way”. Experimental technologies like ADIs, however, often work involuntarily about as well (and for the same reason) as a gun to the head.

  8. Cf. Holoyda [90], who confirms the usefulness of psychedelic drugs on recidivism:

    Though Timothy Leary’s research failed to identify a link between psychedelic use and a reduction in criminal recidivism, more recent studies support his hypothesis that psychedelic drug use may reduce an individual’s risk for engaging in violence and other anti-social behavior.

  9. For a highly imaginative variant of this thought experiment, see Savulescu and Persson [91].

  10. For a legal defense of anti-libidinal interventions, see Forsberg and Douglas [92] and Forsberg [93].

  11. Cf. Douglas [94] and McMahan [95] for defenses of the moral liability of criminal offenders to medical interventions. See also Douglas [96] for replies to critics.

  12. This isn’t a defense of chemical castration tout court, or even a defense of chemical castration as a condition of early release for just any prisoner. Unlike forced sterilization of (predominantly) Black women in the United States, anti-libidinal interventions bear a special relation to the crime committed, namely, sexual assault and its prevention. For more on the disturbing history of eugenics and forced sterilization, see Cohen [97], Bruinius [98], and Tännsjö [99]. For a review of the legal scene at the zenith of eugenics, see Donovan [100].

  13. Cf. Hereth [28], at 69.

  14. Cf. Hereth [28], at 71.

  15. Combatants subject to immediate termination upon resuming their belligerent status are very unlikely to choose or be allowed to resume their belligerent status. They are, as it were, ‘dead in the water’ and unfit for combat.

  16. War criminals arguably deserve punishment, if anyone does, but war criminals comprise only a small fraction of unjust combatants. However, another reply is available in the case of war criminals. Either a war criminal’s just deserts include punitive MANE, or they don’t. If they do, then pursuing punitive MANE as an alternative to incarceration is permissible (and, by premise 7, obligatory). If they don’t, we should ask why. My best guess is that some would prefer war criminals’ punishment to be very bad for them and MANE feels like getting off cheap. However, there’s a sense in which MANE is very bad for them: it modifies their allegiances and threatens severe harm for noncompliance. To appease readers for whom MANE is inadequate by their retributive lights, I recommend pursuing both MANE and some other form of punishment (either concurrently or in some preferred temporal order).

  17. See also my response to Objection 9 below.

  18. The 1998 film Saving Private Ryan portrays a similar case: U.S. Corporal Upham (Jeremy Davies) spares German soldier ‘Steamboat Willie’ (Joerg Stadler), who later returns and fatally wounds Captain Miller (Tom Hanks) and is subsequently killed by Upham.

  19. Alternatively, we can say that General’s defensive action satisfies necessity notwithstanding their moral responsibility for its necessity, and thus General’s defensive action is all-things-considered morally permissible. However, even this alternate route reaches the same destination. Because General is morally responsible for the necessity of their own defensive action (i.e., responsible for unjust threats to others), their prior actions necessitating defensive action were impermissible. Perhaps worse, consider that General bears greater responsibility than Sergeant for Sergeant’s unjust threats. After all, it’s because of General’s actions that Sergeant poses an unjust threat: Absent General’s actions, Sergeant would have remained disarmed. So, justice seems to require that General carry the lion’s share of moral liability–a conclusion that nobody welcomes (at least not for their own generals).

  20. Can we justify releasing Sergeant on liberty grounds? That is, does Sergeant’s right or interest in being free justify letting them go, knowing that they will abuse their liberty? No, because it’s not solely Sergeant’s choice to be later threatened (justifiably or not) by just combatants but also our choice (and we can’t justify our choosing it), and Sergeant’s liberty interests take a back seat to the interests of the nonliable parties she would threaten if released.

  21. Cf. Thomsen [101], 208–211. Thomsen describes a parallel medical justification in the following passage:

    Given that the State characterized as these individuals as a biological threat, it should come as no surprise that the State would use a medical tool to assist in mitigating or removing the threat to the greatest possible extent. In this context, fMRI is more than a form of lie detector. It is a tool used to diagnose a threat to the State in the same way that a physician utilizes a blood test to diagnose a threat to the body [101].

  22. My thanks to Tom Douglas for comments that improved my formulation of Therapy.

  23. Does routine medical treatment of unjust POWs require their consent? Consider force-feeding techniques applied at Guantánamo Bay: They keep patients alive and arguably constitute medical treatment, as they do in anorexia force-feeding treatments [102,103,104], but many condemn these practices [105, 106] and others recommend DBS as an alternative [107]. I lack the space to explore this question here. For now, I concede the possibility that the Best Therapy Argument’s success is parasitic on the Recidivism Reduction Argument’s success, as averting unjust harms typically does not require consent.

  24. What if the probabilities are distinct but close? That is, suppose Prisoner’s odds of being justifiably killed or incarcerated are 10% with MANE and 15% without MANE. Would the smallest of improved odds justify imposing invasive MANE interventions on Prisoner without their consent? It might, given the severe badness of death or long-term imprisonment.

  25. None of this is to say that dependency is, itself, bad–an ableist conclusion [108]. Rather, it’s to say that causing others to be dependent upon us entails duties to care for them.

  26. I don’t have space to defend this claim here. However, if repatriation risks are sufficiently serious, then morally improved enemy POWs might qualify as refugees the enhancing state is obligated to accept under refoulement principles. See Blake and Hereth [109].

  27. During the Middle Ages, noblemen prisoners of war within Christendom would promise to remain hors de combat in exchange for release. The prospect of dishonoring oneself by breaking this oath, as well as the threat of retaliation, proved effective in ensuring promise-keeping. For more, see Buchan [110]. My thanks to Michael Gross for this historical example of establishing a process for symmetrical benefitting during war.

  28. For a superb discussion of paternalism and consent in the military, see Wolfendale and Clarke [111] and Greene and Master [112].

  29. I am indebted to Michael Gross for suggesting this important application.

  30. Cf. Quong [118], at 28.

  31. For an applied perspective from a military surgeon, see Taylor [113].

  32. For defenses of this objection, see Bublitz [58] and Harris [8].

  33. For replies, see Varelius [114] and Diéguez and Véliz [115].

  34. For a challenge to this view, see Bayne and Levy [116].

  35. Thanks to Tom Douglas for encouraging me to address this objection more explicitly.

  36. For a critique, see Bazargan-Forward [117].

References

  1. Flanigan, Jessica. 2013. Adderall for All: A Defense of Pediatric Neuroenhancement. HEC Forum 25 (4): 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahlskog, Rafael. 2017. Moral Enhancement Should Target Self-Interest and Cognitive Capacity. Neuroethics 10: 363–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Douglas, Thomas. 2008. Moral Enhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3): 228–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Archer, Alfred. 2016. Moral Enhancement and Those Left Behind. Bioethics 30 (7): 500–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Douglas, Thomas. 2019. Enhancement and Desert. Politics Philosophy and Economics 18 (1): 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Crutchfield, Parker. 2018. Moral Enhancement Can Kill. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 43: 568–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dubljević, Veljko, and Eric Racine. 2017. Moral Enhancement Meets Normative and Empirical Reality: Assessing the Practical Feasibility of Moral Enhancement Neurotechnologies. Bioethics 31 (5): 338–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Harris, John. 2011. Moral Enhancement and Freedom. Bioethics 25 (2): 102–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schaefer, G. Owen. 2015. Direct vs. Indirect Moral Enhancement. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 25 (3): 261–289.

  10. Lara, Francisco. 2017. Oxytocin Empathy and Human Enhancement. Theoria 32 (3): 367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2019. The Duty to be Morally Enhanced. Topoi 38: 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2013. Getting Moral Enhancement Right: The Desirability of Moral Bioenhancement. Bioethics 27 (3): 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barn, Gulzaar. 2019. Can Medical Interventions Serve as ‘Criminal Rehabilitation’? Neuroethics 12 (1): 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cabrera, Laura Y., and Bernice S. Elger. 2016. Memory Interventions in the Criminal Justice System: Some Practical Ethical Considerations. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13 (1): 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koi, Polaris, Susanne Uusitalo, and Jarno Tuominen. 2018. Self-Control in Responsibility Enhancement and Criminal Rehabilitation. Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (2): 227–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shaw, Elizabeth. 2018. Retributivism and the Moral Enhancement of Criminals Through Brain Interventions. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 83: 251–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shaw, Elizabeth. 2014. Direct Brain Interventions and Responsibility Enhancement. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wolfendale, Jessica. 2008. Performance-Enhancing Technologies and Moral Responsibility in the Military. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2): 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Evers, Kathinka. 2007. Perspectives on Memory Manipulation: Using Beta-Blockers to Cure Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (2): 138–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hurley, Elisa A. 2010. Combat Trauma and the Moral Risks of Memory Manipulating Drugs. Journal of Applied Philosophy 27 (3): 221–245.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Caplan, Arthur. 2011. The Use of Prisoners as Sources of Organs–An Ethically Dubious Practice. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (10): 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Paul, Norbert W., Arthur Caplan, Michael E. Shapiro, Charl Els, Kick C. Allison, and Huige Li. 2017. Human Rights Violations in Organ Procurement Practice in China. BMC Medical Ethics 18 (11): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Douglas, Thomas, Pieter Bonte, Farah Focquaert, Katrien Devolder, and Sigrid Sterckx. 2013. Coercion Incarceration and Chemical Castration: An Argument from Autonomy. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (3): 393–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Feinstein, Dianne. 2014. The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture: Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program. Brooklyn: Melville House.

  25. Wolfendale, Jessica. 2009. The Myth of ‘Torture Lite.’ Ethics and International Affairs 23 (1): 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Seed, David. 2004. Brainwashing: The Fictions of Mind Control: A Study of Novels and Films Since World War II. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Marks, John. 1978. The Search for the “Manchurian Candidate”: The CIA and Mind-Control. NY: Times Books.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hereth, Blake. 2021. Health Justice for Unjust Combatants. Journal of Military Ethics 20 (1): 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Earp, Brian D. 2018. Psychedelic Moral Enhancement. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 83: 415–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Focquaert, Farah, and Maartje Schermer. 2015. Moral Enhancement: Do Means Matter Morally. Neuroethics 8: 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Douglas, Thomas. 2018. Neural and Environmental Modulation of Motivation: What’s the Difference. In Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, ed. David Birks and Thomas Douglas, 208–223. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Pugh, Jonathan. 2019. No Going Back? Reversibility and Why it Matters for Deep Brain Stimulation. Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (4): 225–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Saracco, Roberto. 2018. Neural Dust is Getting Ready for Your Brain. IEEE. http://sites.ieee.org/futuredirections/2018/05/21/neural-dust-is-getting-ready-for-your-brain/.

  34. Puscas, Ioana Maria. 2020. Military Enhancement: Technologies Ethics and Operational Issues. In Ethics of Medical Innovation Experimentation and Enhancement in Military and Humanitarian Contexts, eds. Daniel Messelken and David Winkler, 127–146. Bern: Springer Nature.

  35. Liberto, Hallie. 2018. Chemical Castration and the Violation of Sexual Rights. In Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, ed. David Birks and Thomas Douglas, 196–207. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chan, Sarah, and John Harris. 2011. Moral Enhancement and Pro-Social Behavior. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (3): 130–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Battin, Margaret Pabst, and Brent M. Kious. 2021. Ending One’s Life in Advance. Hastings Center Report 51 (3): 37–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Frowe, Helen. 2014. Defensive Killing: An Essay on War and Self-Defense. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Fabre, Cécile. 2009. Guns Food and Liability to Attack in War. Ethics 120 (1): 36–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. DeGrazia, David. 2013. Moral Enhancement Freedom and What We (Should) Value in Moral Behavior. Journal of Medical Ethics 40: 361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Haque, Adil Ahmad. 2014. Law and Morality at War. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1): 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Viner, Steve. 2010. Self-Defense Punishing Unjust Combatants and Justice in War. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (3): 297–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Carter, Sarah. 2017. Could Moral Enhancement Interventions be Medically Indicated? Health Care Analysis 25: 338–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pettit, Philip. 1999. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Lazar, Seth. 2015. Sparing Civilians. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Crutchfield, Parker. 2019. Compulsory Moral Bioenhancement Should Be Covert. Bioethics 33 (1): 112–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Miles, Steven H. 2016. Military Suicide Capsules and Medical Ethics. Bioethics.net. https://www.bioethics.net/2016/03/military-suicide-capsules-and-medical-ethics/.

  48. Finlay, Christopher J. 2010. Terrorism Resistance and the Idea of ‘Unlawful Combatancy.’ Ethics and International Affairs 24 (1): 91–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Meisels, Tamar. 2005. Combatants–Lawful and Unlawful. Law and Philosophy 26 (1): 31–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Holmes, Dave, and Anthony Perron. 2007. Violating Ethics: Unlawful Combatants National Security and Health Professionals. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (3): 143–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zurn, Perry. 2021. Prisons. In Oxford Handbook of Feminist Philosophy, ed. Ásta. Sveinsdóttir and Kim Q. Hall, 440–450. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lim, James Edgar. 2018. Is Incarceration Better Than Neurointervention? On the Intended Harms of Prison. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 9 (3): 168–170.

    Google Scholar 

  53. McMahan, Jeff. 2009. Killing in War. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Ross, Andrew. 2015. On Killing Threats as a Means. Philosophia 43 (3): 869–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Bomann-Larsen, Lene. 2013. Voluntary Rehabilitation? On Neurotechnological Behavioral Treatment Valid Consent and (In)appropriate Offers. Neuroethics 6 (1): 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Focquaert, Farah. 2014. Mandatory Neurotechnological Treatment: Ethical Issues. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (1): 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Gur-Arye, Miriam. 2012. Human Dignity of ‘Offenders’: A Limitation on Substantive Criminal Law. Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (2): 187–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bublitz, Christoph. 2016. Moral Enhancement and Mental Freedom. Journal of Applied Philosophy 33 (1): 88–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Bublitz, Christoph, and Reinhard Merkel. 2014. Crimes Against Minds: On Mental Manipulations, Harms, and a Human Right to Mental Self-Determination. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1): 51–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kirchmair, Lando. 2019. Objections to Coercive Neurocorrectives for Criminal Offenders: Why Offenders’ Human Rights Should Fundamentally Come First. Criminal Justice Ethics 38 (1): 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Douglas, Thomas. 2013. Moral Enhancement via Direct Emotion Modulation: A Reply to John Harris. Bioethics 27 (3): 160–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rakić, Vojin. 2017. Compulsory Administration of Oxytocin Does Not Result in Genuine Moral Enhancement. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 20 (3): 291–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rakić, Vojin. 2014. Voluntary Moral Enhancement and the Survival-at-any-Cost Bias. Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (4): 246–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Crutchfield, Parker. 2016. The Epistemology of Moral Bioenhancement. Bioethics 30 (5): 389–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Davis, Jeremy. 2021. Scope Restrictions National Partiality and War. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 20 (2): 144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Lord, Errol. 2016. Justifying Partiality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (3): 569–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kolodny, Niko. 2010. Which Relationships Justify Partiality? The Case of Parents and Children. Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (1): 37–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Bazargan-Forward, Saba. 2014. Varieties of Contingent Pacifism in War. In How We Fight: Ethics in War, ed. Helen Frowe and Gerald Lang, 1–17. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Dobos, Ned. 2020. Ethics Security and the War-Machine: The True Cost of the Military. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  70. Miller, David. 2005. Reasonable Partiality Towards Compatriots. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (1–2): 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Nathanson, Stephen. 2009. Patriotism War and the Limits of Permissible Partiality. Journal of Ethics 13 (4): 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Frowe, Helen. 2020. Bystanders Risks and Consent. Bioethics 34 (9): 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Klein, Eran. 2016. Informed Consent in Implantable BCI Research: Identifying Risks and Exploring Meaning. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (5): 1299–1317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Millum, Joseph, and Danielle Bromwich. 2021. Informed Consent: What Must Be Disclosed and What Must Be Understood? American Journal of Bioethics 21 (5): 46–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Friedman, Alexander, Emily Robbins, and David Wendler. 2012. Which Benefits of Research Participation Count as ‘Direct’? Bioethics 26 (2): 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Wendler, David. 2020. Minimizing Risks is Not Enough: The Relevance of Benefits to Protecting Research Participants. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 63 (2): 346–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Shaw, Elizabeth. 2018. Against the Mandatory Use of Neurointerventions in Criminal Sentencing. In Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, ed. David Birks and Thomas Douglas, 321–337. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. McMahan, Jeff. 2013. The Conditions of Liability to Preventive Attack. In The Ethics of Preventive War, ed. Deen K. Chatterjee, 121–144. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  79. Gibson, Richard B. 2021. Elective Amputation and Neuroprosthetic Limbs. The New Bioethics 27 (1): 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Gibson, Richard B. 2020. Elective Impairment Minus Elective Disability: The Social Model of Disability and Body Integrity Identity Disorder. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 17 (1): 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Müller, Sabine. 2009. Body Integrity Identity Disorder–Is the Amputation of Healthy Limbs Ethically Justified? American Journal of Bioethics 9 (1): 36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Holmes, Robert L. 1989. On War and Morality. NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  83. May, Larry. 2015. Contingent Pacifism: Revisiting Just War Theory. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  84. May, Larry. 2011. Contingent Pacifism and the Moral Risk of Participating in War. Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (2): 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Earp, Brian D., Thomas Douglas, and Julian Savulescu. 2017. Moral Neuroenhancement. In The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics, ed. Syd Johnson and Karen Rommelfanger, 166–184. NY: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  86. Jung, JeYoung, and Matthew A. Lambon Ralph. 2021. Enhancing vs. Inhibiting Semantic Performance with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation over the Anterior Temporal Lobe: Frequency- and Task-Specific Effects. NeuroImage 234: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Bleich-Cohen, Maya, et al. 2021. A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imagine Investigation of Prefrontal Cortex Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Efficacy in Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder: A Double Blind Randomized Clinical Trial. NeuroImage: Clinical 30: 1–10.

  88. Kamieński, Lukasz. 2016. Shooting Up: A Short History of Drugs and War. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Macpherson, Ignacio, María Victoria. Rogué, and Ignacio Segarra. 2019. Moral Enhancement at the Peak of Pharmacology and the Limit of Ethics. Bioethics 33: 992–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Holoyda, Brian. 2020. The Psychedelic Renaissance and Its Forensic Implications. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 48 (1): 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Savulescu, Julian, and Ingmar Persson. 2012. Moral Enhancement Freedom and the God Machine. The Monist 95 (3): 399–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Forsberg, Lisa, and Thomas Douglas. 2017. Anti-Libidinal Interventions in Sex Offenders: Medical or Correctional? Medical Law Review 24 (4): 453–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Forsberg, Lisa. 2018. Crime-Preventing Neurointerventions and the Law: Learning from Anti-Libidinal Interventions. In Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, ed. David Birks and Thomas Douglas, 44–70. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Douglas, Thomas. 2014. Criminal Rehabilitation Through Medical Intervention: Moral Liability and the Right to Bodily Integrity. Journal of Ethics 18 (2): 101–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. McMahan, Jeff. 2018. Moral Liability to ‘Crime-Preventing Neurointervention.’ In Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, ed. David Birks and Thomas Douglas, 117–123. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Douglas, Thomas. 2019. Nonconsensual Neurocorrectives and Bodily Integrity: A Reply to Shaw and Bern. Neuroethics 12 (1): 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Cohen, Adam. 2017. Imbeciles: The Supreme Court American Eugenics and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Bruinius, Harry. 2006. Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America’s Quest for Racial Purity. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 2006. Non-Voluntary Sterilization. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (4): 401–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Donovan, Patricia. 1976. Sterilizing the Poor and Incompetent. Hastings Center Report 6 (5): 7–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Thomsen, Kyle. 2015. Prison Camp or ‘Prison Clinic’? Biopolitics Neuroethics and National Security. In Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense: Practical Considerations, Neuroethical Concerns, ed. James Giordano, 199–216. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Radden, Jennifer H. 2021. Forced Feeding for Anorexia: Soft or Hard Paternalism? Philosophy Psychiatry and Psychology 28 (2): 159–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Giordano, Simona. 2019. Anorexia Nervosa: A Case for Exceptionalism in Ethical Decision Making. Philosophy Psychiatry and Psychology 26 (4): 315–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Giordano, Simona. 2005. Understanding Eating Disorders: Conceptual and Ethical Issues in the Treatment of Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa. NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  105. Bendtsen, Kathrine. 2019. On the Force-Feeding of Prisoners on Hunger Strike. HEC Forum 31 (1): 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Annas, George J. 2017. Force-Feeding at Guantánamo. Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (1): 22–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Pugh, Jonathan, Jacinta Tan, Tipu Aziz, and Rebecca,. 2018. J. Park. The Moral Obligation to Prioritize Research into Deep Brain Stimulation Over Brain Lesioning Procedures for Severe Enduring Anorexia Nervosa. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (523): 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Kittay, Eva Feder. 2011. The Ethics of Care Dependence and Disability. Ratio Juris 24 (1): 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Blake, Michael, and Blake Hereth. 2020. Sanctuary Cities and Non-Refoulement. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 23 (2): 457–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Buchan, Russell. 2018. The Rule of Surrender in International Humanitarian Law. Israel Law Review 51 (1): 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Wolfendale, Jessica, and Steve Clarke. 2008. Paternalism Consent and the Use of Experimental Drugs in the Military. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 33 (4): 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Greene, Marsha, and Zubin Master. 2018. Ethical Issues of Using CRISPR Technologies for Research on Military Enhancement. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 15 (3): 327–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Taylor, Jackson B. 2020. Innovation or Experimentation? Experiences from a Military Surgeon. In Ethics of Medical Innovation Experimentation and Enhancement in Military and Humanitarian Contexts, eds. Daniel Messelken and David Winkler, 27–36. Bern: Springer Nature.

  114. Varelius, Jukka. 2020. Would Nonconsensual Criminal Neurorehabilitation Express a More Degrading Attitude Towards Offenders than Consensual Criminal Neurorehabilitation? Neuroethics 14 (2): 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Diéguez, Antonio, and Carissa Véliz. 2019. Would Moral Enhancement Limit Freedom. Topoi 38 (1): 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Bayne, Tim, and Neil Levy. 2005. Amputees by Choice: Body Integrity Identity Disorder and the Ethics of Amputation. Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1): 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Bazargan-Forward, Saba. 2013. Morally Heterogeneous Wars. Philosophia 41 (4): 959–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Quong, Jonathan. 2009. Killing in Self-Defense. Ethics 119 (3): 507–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Tom Douglas, Michael Gross, Jonathan Moreno, Nick Evans, Paul Tubig, and Erika Versalovic for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Special thanks to the 2021 Minerva Research Initiative grant “The Ethics of Warfighter Participation in the Development and Testing of AI-Driven Performance Enhancements” for funding it.

Funding

This paper was funded under a grant by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, award number FA9550-21–1-0142.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA

    Blake Hereth

Authors
  1. Blake Hereth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blake Hereth.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interests/Competing Interests

The author has no conflicts of interests/competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hereth, B. Moral Neuroenhancement for Prisoners of War. Neuroethics 15, 15 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09482-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09482-2

Keywords

  • Moral neuroenhancement
  • Moral treatment
  • Prisoners of war
  • Military ethics