Neuroethics 10 (3):405-417 (2017)
AbstractTo gain insight into the reasons that the public may have for endorsing or eschewing pharmacological moral enhancement for themselves or for others, we used empirical tools to explore public attitudes towards these issues. Participants from the United States were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and were randomly assigned to read one of several contrastive vignettes in which a 13-year-old child is described as bullying another student in school and then is offered an empathy-enhancing program. The empathy-enhancing program is described as either involving taking a pill or playing a video game on a daily basis for four weeks. In addition, participants were asked to imagine either their own child bullying another student at school, or their own child being bullied by another student. This resulted in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design. In an escalating series of morally challenging questions, we asked participants to rate their overall support for the program; whether they would support requiring participation; whether they would support requiring participation of children who are at higher risk to become bullies in the future; whether they would support requiring participation of all children or even the entire population; and whether they would be willing to participate in the program themselves. We found that people were significantly more troubled by pharmacological as opposed to non-pharmacological moral enhancement interventions. The results indicate that members of the public for the greater part oppose pharmacological moral bioenhancement, yet are open to non-biomedical means to attain moral enhancement. [248 words].
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement.Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu - 2012 - Oxford University Press UK.
The Perils of Cognitive Enhancement and the Urgent Imperative to Enhance the Moral Character of Humanity.Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3):162-177.
Citations of this work
Three Rationales for a Legal Right to Mental Integrity.Thomas Douglas & Lisa Forsberg - 2021 - In S. Ligthart, D. van Toor, T. Kooijmans, T. Douglas & G. Meynen (eds.), Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice and Security. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cognitive Enhancement: Unanswered Questions About Human Psychology and Social Behavior.Wren Boehlen, Sebastian Sattler & Eric Racine - 2021 - Science and Engineering Ethics 27 (2):1-25.
Bottom Up Ethics - Neuroenhancement in Education and Employment.Hub Zwart, Márton Varju, Vincent Torre, Helge Torgersen, Winnie Toonders, Han Somsen, Ilina Singh, Simone Seyringer, Júlio Santos, Judit Sándor, Núria Saladié, Gema Revuelta, Alexandre Quintanilha, Salvör Nordal, Anna Meijknecht, Sheena Laursen, Nicole Kronberger, Christian Hofmaier, Elisabeth Hildt, Juergen Hampel, Peter Eduard, Rui Cunha, Agnes Allansdottir, George Gaskell & Imre Bard - 2018 - Neuroethics 11 (3):309-322.
Bottom Up Ethics - Neuroenhancement in Education and Employment.Imre Bard, George Gaskell, Agnes Allansdottir, Rui Vieira da Cunha, Peter Eduard, Juergen Hampel, Elisabeth Hildt, Christian Hofmaier, Nicole Kronberger, Sheena Laursen, Anna Meijknecht, Salvör Nordal, Alexandre Quintanilha, Gema Revuelta, Núria Saladié, Judit Sándor, Júlio Borlido Santos, Simone Seyringer, Ilina Singh, Han Somsen, Winnie Toonders, Helge Torgersen, Vincent Torre, Márton Varju & Hub Zwart - 2018 - Neuroethics 11 (3):309-322.
Similar books and articles
Moral Enhancement: Do Means Matter Morally?Farah Focquaert & Maartje Schermer - 2015 - Neuroethics 8 (2):139-151.
Empirical Support for the Moral Salience of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in the Debate Over Cognitive, Affective and Social Enhancement.Laura Y. Cabrera, Nicholas S. Fitz & Peter B. Reiner - 2015 - Neuroethics 8 (3):243-256.
Reasons for Comfort and Discomfort with Pharmacological Enhancement of Cognitive, Affective, and Social Domains.Laura Y. Cabrera, Nicholas S. Fitz & Peter B. Reiner - 2015 - Neuroethics 8 (2):93-106.
On Defining Moral Enhancement: A Clarificatory Taxonomy.Kasper Raus, Farah Focquaert, Maartje Schermer, Jona Specker & Sigrid Sterckx - 2014 - Neuroethics 7 (3):263-273.
Public Attitudes Toward Cognitive Enhancement.Nicholas S. Fitz, Roland Nadler, Praveena Manogaran, Eugene W. J. Chong & Peter B. Reiner - 2014 - Neuroethics 7 (2):173-188.
Integration of Cognitive and Moral Enhancement.Vojin Rakic - 2012 - Filozofija I Društvo 23 (2):91-103.
Getting Moral Enhancement Right: The Desirability of Moral Bioenhancement.Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (3):124-131.
Biomedical Moral Enhancement in the Face of Moral Particularism.Pei-Hua Huang & Peter Shiu-Hwa Tsu - 2018 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 83:189-208.
Moral Perfection and the Demand for Human Enhancement.Adriana Warmbier - 2015 - Ethics in Progress 2015 (No.1).
My Brain Made Me Moral: Moral Performance Enhancement for Realists.John Shook - 2016 - Neuroethics 9 (3):199-211.
Putting a Price on Empathy: Against Incentivising Moral Enhancement.Sarah Carter - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (10):825-829.
What to Enhance: Behaviour, Emotion or Disposition?Karim Jebari - 2014 - Neuroethics 7 (3):253-261.
Climate Change and Human Moral Enhancement.Tvrtko Jolic - 2014 - In Mladen Domazet & Dinka Marinovic Jerolimov (eds.), Sustainability Perspectives from the European Semi-periphery. Institute for social research. pp. 79-91.