Moral Neuroenhancement for Prisoners of War

Neuroethics 15 (1):1-20 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Moral agential neuroenhancement can transform us into better people. However, critics of MB raise four central objections to MANEs use: It destroys moral freedom; it kills one moral agent and replaces them with another, better agent; it carries significant risk of infection and illness; it benefits society but not the enhanced person; and it’s wrong to experiment on nonconsenting persons. Herein, I defend MANE’s use for prisoners of war 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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Moral Neuroenhancement.Brian D. Earp, Thomas Douglas & Julian Savulescu - 2017 - In L. Syd M. Johnson & Karen S. Rommelfanger (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics. Routledge.
The Morality of Moral Neuroenhancement.Thomas Douglas - forthcoming - In Clausen Jens & Levy Neil (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer.
Neuroenhancement: Much Ado About Nothing?Frédéric Gilbert & Bernard Baertschi - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2 (4):45-47.
On Ritalin, Adderall, and Cognitive Enhancement: Metaethics, Bioethics, Neuroethics.Nythamar de Oliveira - 2016 - Ethic@ - An International Journal for Moral Philosophy 15 (3):343-368.
Medicine in handcuffs: restraining prisoners and detainees undergoing medical treatment and hospitalisation.Noam Lubell - 2003 - Tel-Aviv: Physicians for Human Rights-Israel. Edited by Ruchama Marton, Michal Bar-Or & Johanne Malka-Shalom.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-12-16

Downloads
40 (#385,977)

6 months
20 (#124,883)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Blake Hereth
University of Pennsylvania

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government.Philip Pettit (ed.) - 1997 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Killing in war.Jeff McMahan - 2009 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Moral enhancement and freedom.John Harris - 2010 - Bioethics 25 (2):102-111.

View all 110 references / Add more references