Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Should we select for genetic moral enhancement? A thought experiment using the MoralKinder (MK+) haplotype

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

By using preimplantation haplotype diagnosis, prospective parents are able to select embryos to implant through in vitro fertilization. If we knew that the naturally-occurring (but theoretical) MoralKinder (MK+) haplotype would predispose individuals to a higher level of morality than average, is it permissible or obligatory to select for the MK+ haplotype? I.e., is it moral to select for morality? This paper explores the various potential issues that could arise from genetic moral enhancement.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Underlying my paper is the statement by Mark Walker, “Should we accept the conjecture that at least some evil in the world is due to our biological nature?” [10].

  2. The author emphasizes that this is all purely conjectural—no known moral haplotype has yet been defined by science. The purpose of this paper is to explore the issues were such an MK+ haplotype (or its equivalent) were discovered.

  3. The reader should feel free to substitute her favorite moral rule or desirable virtuous action for the “do not steal” rule I use here to illustrate the MK+ haplotype. I think the reader will eventually agree that my arguments are not rule-specific or virtue-specific and they cross moral theory boundaries.

  4. By “moral inclinations,” I mean a child who has the same frequency of acting on desires and urges as the average 10-year-old does. I use the term “moral judgments” as does Borg: “judgments of the rightness or wrongness of acts that knowingly cause harm to people other than the agent” [5].

  5. Though I do not believe it has ever been proven, I presume that most of us are born with some amount of genetic moral potential or intelligence; otherwise, our moral teachings would fall on deaf ears (or the individual would be considered a sociopath).

  6. See footnote 4.

  7. See, for example, Agar [14], DeGrazia [15], Fukuyama [16], Green [17], Habermas [18] (see, in particular, chapters 6 and 7), Harris [19], McKibben [20], Parens [21], Walters [22], and the President’s Council [23].

  8. For a good summary of the various types of identity – biological, psychological, constitutive, and mind-embodiment, see David DeGrazia [15], especially chapter 7, “Prenatal Identity.”

  9. We also care about moral integrity because we care about personal reputation and/or internal desire consistencies.

  10. Though currently under dispute, there may be evidence that sociopathy is at least partially genetic (see the various commentaries to Linda Mealey in Brain and Behavior Science [32]). Suppose we could define an MK2 haplotype that would cause a child to be much less moral than normal, i.e., sociopathic. Would it be moral to permit parents to choose for this haplotype because of their desire to have a sociopathic child? I doubt there would be a market for this; generally we do not hear parents saying they wish their children were more evil, so I would doubt they would be clamoring for the MK2 haplotype as well, though there may be the rare set of parents who do so for criminal or dictatorial purposes, as noted in the main text.

  11. I thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this question.

  12. See, in particular, Chap. 10.

  13. Searle points out the problems with classical philosophical explanations of why we act based upon desires and beliefs by pointing out where the gaps arise, and claiming that rationality is in the gaps, not in the desires, beliefs, motives, intentions, and actions themselves [34]. Even with “universal standards of rationality and rational deliberation by agents, massive disagreements are still possible, indeed inevitable” [34, p. xv].

  14. Depending on one’s view of God’s interaction with human genetics, this comment may be debatable, but turns more on theology than moral philosophy. For example, might there be a divine reason that the penetration of the haplotype is not higher than 10%? Alternatively, might the random chance of evolution also have some reason we humans cannot divine not to have a higher penetration of the MK+ so far?

  15. Of course, although this thought experiment precludes that MK+ s have mentally negative effects, we would want to show through empirical observational studies that these children do not grow up to have higher rates of mental illness, addiction, family pathology, or other social/mental disorders because of social pressures associated with their principled stands in childhood.

  16. In some cases there are both. Take John F. Nash, Jr. who was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in 1994 for his work in game theory. He is also the protagonist in the film “A Beautiful Mind.” Nash was both a genius achiever and a paranoid schizophrenic.

  17. For discussion about the public health approaches of this issue, see the seminal paper by Geoffrey Rose [37].

  18. Walters and Palmer make a similar argument regarding moral genetic interventions when they state, “many people, perhaps a majority in most societies where [a genetic intervention] is available, would accept this new technology. This majority, in turn, would help to create a new ethos that might well attract others who were initially skeptical” [22, p. 128].

  19. This analysis does not take into account the potential of additional synergies or dys-synergies, discussed below.

  20. See, for example, Smilansky [40] and Fotion [41].

  21. I am assuming in this discussion that there is no sharing of genetic information among parents in order to set up a reverse stigmata situation, where parents would initially choose to have their children socialize with other MK+ children only because they are identifiable and can aggregate them as such.

  22. Of course, it is also possible parents will figure out who is MK− through observing behavior and will not permit their children to play with them. In that case, we may have to await a generation or two of increasing penetration of MK+ for the “rising tide” to decrease the social divide.

  23. Granted, there may be a self-defeating quality to this, as pointed out by Parker: “The pursuit of the best possible, as opposed to the pursuit of the good, would be bound to lead to a life of dissatisfaction with any life as lived and to a constant drive for self-improvement” [17]. Countering this, religiously-oriented individuals could argue that it is only through approaching moral perfection that the time of the messiah might come (again).

References

  1. Mill, John S. 1869. On liberty. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mangravite, L.M., C.F. Thorn, and R.M. Krauss. 2006. Clinical implications of pharmacogenomics of statin treatment. The Pharmacogenomics Journal 6: 360–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Duffy, Michael J. 2005. Predictive markers in breast and other cancers: A review. Clinical Chemistry 51: 494–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Greene, Joshua D., R. Brian Sommerville, Leigh E. Nystrom, John M. Darley, and Jonathan D. Cohen. 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293: 2105–2108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borg, Jana S., Catherine Hynes, John Van Horn, et al. 2006. Consequences, action, and intention as factors in moral judgments: An fMRI investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 803–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Plomin, Robert, Michael J. Owen, and Peter McGuffin. 1994. The genetic basis of complex human behaviors. Science 264: 1733–1739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. McCrae, Robert R., and Paul T. Costa. 1997. Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist 52: 509–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. McCrae, Robert R., Kerry L. Jang, W.John Livesley, Rainer Riemann, and Alois Angleiter. 2001. Sources of structure: Genetic, environmental, and artifactual influences on the covariation of personality traits. Journal of Personality 69: 511–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Livesley, W. John, Kerry L. Jang, and Phillip A. Vernon. 1998. Phenotypic and genetic structure of traits delineating personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry 55: 941–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Walker, Mark. 2003. Genetic virtue. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/walker20031119/. Accessed Oct 4 2008.

  11. de Waal, Frans. 1999. The end of nature versus nurture. Scientific American 281: 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Singer, Tania, Ben Seymour, John P. O’Doherty, et al. 2006. Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature 439: 466–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Plomin, Robert, and Kathryn Asbury. 2005. Nature and nurture: Genetic and environmental influences on behavior. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600: 86–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Agar, Nicholas. 2004. Liberal eugenics: In defense of human enhancement. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  15. De Grazia, David. 2005. Human identity and bioethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fukuyama, Francis. 2002. Our posthuman future, consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Green, Ronald M. 2007. Babies by design: The ethics of genetic choice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Habermas, Jürgen. 2003. The future of human nature. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Harris, Jonathan. 2007. Enhancing evolution: The ethical choice for making better people. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. McKibben, Bill. 2003. Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Parens, Erik, ed. 1998. Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Walters, Leroy, and Julie Gage Palmer. 1997. The ethics of human gene therapy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. President’s Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Savulescu, Julian. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15: 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Savulescu, Julian. 2007. In defence of procreative beneficence. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 284–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Birch, Kean. 2005. Beneficence, determinism and justice: An engagement with the argument for the genetic selection of intelligence. Bioethics 19: 12–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Parker, Michael. 2007. The best possible child. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 279–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gert, Bernard, Charles M. Culver, and K.Danner Clouser. 2006. Bioethics: A systematic approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Singer, Peter. 1995. How are we to live? Ethics in an age of self-interest. New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Blackburn, Simon. 2003. Being good: A short introduction to ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cole-Turner, Ronald. 1998. Do means matter? In Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications, ed. Erik Parens, 151–161. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mealey, Linda. 1995. The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Brain and Behavior Science 18: 523–599. Commentaries in the BBS issue (1997) 20 (3): 525–532.

  33. Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Searle, John R. 2001. Rationality in action. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Juengst, Eric T. 1998. What does enhancement mean? In Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications, ed. Erik Parens, 29–47. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Smith, H.M. 1991. Varieties of moral worth and moral credit. Ethics 101 (1): 279–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rose, Geoffrey. 1985. Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology 14: 32–38.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Williams, Thomas N., Tabitha W. Mwangi, Sammy Wambua, Neal D. Alexander, et al. 2005. Sickle cell trait and the risk of Plasmodium falciparum malaria and other childhood diseases. Journal of Infectious Diseases 192: 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lindsay, Ronald A. 2005. Enhancements and justice: Problems in determining the requirements of justice in a genetically transformed society. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15: 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Smilansky, Saul. 2006. Some thoughts on terrorism, moral complaint, and the self-reflexive and relational nature of morality. Philosophia 34: 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fotion, Nick. 2006. Two theories of just war. Philosophia 34: 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sandel, Michael J. 2004. The case against perfection. Atlantic Monthly 293: 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kamm, Frances M. 2005. Is there a problem with enhancement? American Journal of Bioethics 5 (3): 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Horsey, Kirsty. 2008. Three million IVF babies born worldwide. http://www.ivf.net/ivf/three_million_ivf_babies_born_worldwide-o2105-en.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2008.

  45. Faust, Halley S. 2009. Kindness, not compassion in health care. Cambridge Health Care Ethics Quarterly 18 (3) (forthcoming).

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Miller Brown and other members of the Hartford Ethics Group and the Santa Fe Ethics Group and to the anonymous reviewers of this journal for their review and comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico, 1260 Vallecita Drive, 87501, Santa Fe, NM, USA

    Halley S. Faust

Authors
  1. Halley S. Faust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Halley S. Faust.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Faust, H.S. Should we select for genetic moral enhancement? A thought experiment using the MoralKinder (MK+) haplotype. Theor Med Bioeth 29, 397–416 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9089-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9089-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation