Moral bioenhancement

[Second Summer]

I'm sure many here have felt frustrated with the apparent lack of the moral dimension in politics and society in general. The climate change and environmental degradation problems are fundamentally moral problems, as is our treatment of animals. Politicians and voters alike are frustratingly short-sighted. If we really wanted to do something about these issues, we would have done so already, but it's more convenient to brush them under the carpet (out of sight is out of mind!) and get distracted with the political circus of scandals, leaks, bickering about comparatively minor issues.

But it appears there is a possible solution to the problem ...!

Our moral shortcomings are preventing our political institutions from acting effectively. Enhancing our moral motivation would enable us to act better for distant people, future generations, and non-human animals. One method to achieve this enhancement is already practised in all societies: moral education. Al Gore, Friends of the Earth and Oxfam have already had success with campaigns vividly representing the problems out selfish actions are creating for others - others around the world and in the future, But there is another possibility emerging. Our knowledge of human biology in particular of genetics and neurobiology - is beginning to enable us to directly affect the biological or physiological bases of human motivation, either through drugs, or through genetic selection or engineering, or by using external devices that affect the brain or the learning process. We could use these techniques to overcome the moral and psychological shortcomings that imperil the human species. We are at the early stages of such research, but there are few cogent philosophical or moral objections to the use of specifically biomedical moral enhancement - or moral bioenhancement. In fact, the risks we face are so serious that it is imperative we explore every possibility of developing moral bioenhancement technologies - not to replace traditional moral education, but to complement it. We simply can't afford to miss opportunities.

From the article Moral Enhancement, by Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson, published in Philosophy Now issue 91.

Of course, it's a difficult question how these technologies should be applied. (Voluntarily? As part of education?)

 

[Blobbenstein]

there's a cartoon in that: a man saying, "before, I was like I didn't give a ****, but now I'm thinkin, "did those bastards have the right to give me those drugs!".

 

[ledboots]

"We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull." George Orwell '1984'

 

[beancounter]

Forget the technology. The biggest issue, is who decides what is moral.

 

[kibbleforlola]

Forget the technology. The biggest issue, is who decides what is moral.

This.

Not to mention, that those who are immoral probably would see no reason to volunteer for "upgrade", as it were; and those who had a true moral compass would most likely see the forced enhancement of others against their will as an immoral act, anyway. So it's a moot point.

 

[KLS52]

Something about moral bio enhancement that doesn't seem very moral.

 

[Second Summer]

This.

Not to mention, that those who are immoral probably would see no reason to volunteer for "upgrade", as it were; and those who had a true moral compass would most likely see the forced enhancement of others against their will as an immoral act, anyway. So it's a moot point.

But if the survival of our species (and numerous other species) hinges on humans somehow developing a moral bone, as it were ...? We could imagine some mad scientist type who designs and releases an endogenous retrovirus for moral bioenhancement of the entire human species. If that is our only option, would it not be more immoral not to do it?

(Disclaimer: I'm just thinking out loud here, not necessarily stating an opinion I will stand for or defend very much.)

 

[beancounter]

But if the survival of our species (and numerous other species) hinges on humans somehow developing a moral bone, as it were ...? If that is our only option, would it not be more immoral not to do it?

I can't imagine a scenario where morality would be necessary for the survival of our species, but the answer IMO, is still No.

 

[Blobbenstein]

it might be better to just let the human race die, rather than warp it.

 

[Blobbenstein]

anyway, I vote for squirrels as the next dominant intelligent species on this planet....humans can genetically modify themselves into a bunch of weird pear people, and the squirrels can reach for the stars.

 

[mlp]

I would suspect that anyone who would voluntarily elect moral bioenhancement for her/himself probably doesn't need it.

If it were possible to do moral bioenhancement on the entire human species so that they/we would treat nonhuman animals decently, I'd be for that.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I can't imagine a scenario where morality would be necessary for the survival of our species, but the answer IMO, is still No.

Really? The earth is in rapid decline precisely because humans have seen no need to extend any kind of moral consideration for anyone or anything other than ourselves for most of our existence. The survival of our species depends on the survival of countless millions of others we have no compunction about wiping out, so I would say we are in the midst of what will probably be another extinction event of a magnitude close to the events that have defined geologic epochs if we do not apply some morality to our behavior in time to at least stop. It's way past reversing. And we are no more likely to survive this extinction event than the other 90% of species who will also be unable to survive it. I would definitely define this as a scenario in which morality is necessary for the survival of our species.

I am certainly not unaware of the moral dilemma involved. Seems like sitting around and doing nothing is like Nero fiddling while Rome burns though.

 

[Freesia]

I think that definitely we need to become more moral, but bioenhancement is not the way.

I remember when I took ecstasy it seemed that all people were one and beautiful and all barriers were dissolved. These days though I only get that "oneness" feeling when I am with animals.

The problem is the fear, greed and short sighted way people become when they have been here on this planet for a certain period of time. And it is hard to find the solution to that.

 

[SummerRain]

it might be better to just let the human race die, rather than warp it.

I agree with the first half of that

I have no problem with warping, but on the whole, I think our race is only a bad thing really.

 

[beancounter]

Really? The earth is in rapid decline precisely because humans have seen no need to extend any kind of moral consideration for anyone or anything other than ourselves for most of our existence. The survival of our species depends on the survival of countless millions of others we have no compunction about wiping out, so I would say we are in the midst of what will probably be another extinction event of a magnitude close to the events that have defined geologic epochs if we do not apply some morality to our behavior in time to at least stop. It's way past reversing. And we are no more likely to survive this extinction event than the other 90% of species who will also be unable to survive it. I would definitely define this as a scenario in which morality is necessary for the survival of our species.

I am certainly not unaware of the moral dilemma involved. Seems like sitting around and doing nothing is like Nero fiddling while Rome burns though.

But this all goes back to my first post. Who decides what is moral.

To you and me and probably most people on this board, the things you mentioned are moral issue. People on the right however believe they have a divinely granted right to exploit the earth for all it's resources.

So whose "morality" are we going to follow?

 

[Danielle]

Yeah, I don't want anyone deciding morals for me. They'll probably decide
Meat - moral, because God says it's ok
Weed - immoral
Violent video games - immoral
Swearing - immoral (because apparently a few cuss words is wrong, while exploiting living beings is ok.. well, because God said so! )

 

[Blobbenstein]

I wonder how the bioenhancement would work. Perhaps it would work by disabling a person's ability to cope with cognitive dissonance. So if they themselves felt that their actions didn't match their beliefs then they would have to do something about that.

 

[beancounter]

I wonder how the bioenhancement would work. Perhaps it would work by disabling a person's ability to cope with cognitive dissonance. So if they themselves felt that their actions didn't match their beliefs then they would have to do something about that.

The problem with that is there are many people who don't have a "moral center", and therefore their actions wouldn't conflict with beliefs they don't have.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think all people have some sort of moral centre, but if their ability to cope with all sorts of conflicts were removed, their response might be a bit chaotic , and unstructured...people might end up becoming psychotic.

 

[Pickle Juice]

But this all goes back to my first post. Who decides what is moral.

To you and me and probably most people on this board, the things you mentioned are moral issue. People on the right however believe they have a divinely granted right to exploit the earth for all it's resources.

So whose "morality" are we going to follow?

I don't see why this is such a difficult question. All of the world's major religions have a version of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and that is pretty much all that is needed. The fact that most of the followers of all the worlds religions choose not to live by this precept doesn't make that precept flawed or unacceptable as a universal moral everyone can agree on. The flaw is in the character of those humans who abandon this moral for their own gain at the expense of others.