Article Text
Abstract
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.
- neuroethics
- enhancement
- non-invasive brain stimulation
- behavior modification
- prisoners
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
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.
Request Permissions
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.
Copyright information:
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Moral enhancement, freedom, and what we (should) value in moral behaviour
- Reply to commentators on Unfit for the Future
- Are we unfit for the future
- Moral bioenhancement is dangerous
- Voluntary moral enhancement and the survival - at - any - cost bias
- A question about defining moral bioenhancement
- Moral bioenhancement, freedom and reasoning
- Taking liberties with free fall
- Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and language
- The moral bioenhancement of psychopaths