Many supporters of ‘moral bioenhancement’ (MBE), the use of biomedical interventions for moral improvement, have been criticised for having unrealistic proposals. The interventions they suggest have often been called infeasible and their implementation plans vague or unethical. I dispute these criticisms by showing that various interventions to implement MBE are practically and ethically feasible enough to warrant serious consideration. Such interventions include transcranial direct current stimulation over the medial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, as well as supplementation with lithium and omega-3. Considering their efficacy and feasibility, it is strange that these interventions have rarely been proposed or discussed as MBE. I review evidence that each of those interventions can reduce antisocial behaviour, reduce racial bias, increase executive function or increase prosocial traits like fairness and altruism. I then specify and defend realistic, ethically permissible ways to implement these interventions, especially for violent offenders and public servants—the former as rehabilitation and the latter to meet the high standards of their occupations. These interventions could be given to violent offenders in exchange for a reduced sentence or compulsorily in some cases. Potential intervention methods for non-prisoners include increasing the USDA-recommended dose of omega-3, encouraging food companies to supplement their products with omega-3 or trace lithium, requiring MBE for employment as a police officer or political leader, and insurance companies providing discounts for undergoing MBE. In some reasonably limited form, using these interventions may be a good first step to implement the project of MBE.
- non-invasive brain stimulation
- behavior modification
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors GMC is the only contributor to this manuscript.
Funding Funding provided by the Paul K Richter and Evalyn EC Richter Memorial Funds through George Fox University.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement There are no data in this work.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and language
- Improved naming after transcranial direct current stimulation in aphasia
- Therapeutic non-invasive brain stimulation in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: rationale, methods and experience
- Neuromodulation through brain stimulation-assisted cognitive training in patients with post-COVID-19 cognitive impairment (Neuromod-COV): study protocol for a PROBE phase IIb trial
- Brain stimulation modulates the autonomic nervous system, rating of perceived exertion and performance during maximal exercise
- HABIT+tDCS: a study protocol of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating the synergistic efficacy of hand-arm bimanual intensive therapy (HABIT) plus targeted non-invasive brain stimulation to improve upper extremity function in school-age children with unilateral cerebral palsy
- Effects of multisession transcranial direct current stimulation as an augmentation to cognitive tasks in patients with neurocognitive disorders in Japan: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
- Transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of Parkinson's disease
- Cognitive effects and acceptability of non-invasive brain stimulation on Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment: a component network meta-analysis
- Transcranial direct current stimulation for the treatment of post-stroke depression: results from a randomised, sham-controlled, double-blinded trial