Public Attitudes Towards Moral Enhancement. Evidence that Means Matter Morally

Neuroethics 10 (3):405-417 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX


To 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].



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,703

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 enhancement.Thomas Douglas - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3):228-245.
Integration of cognitive and moral enhancement.Vojin Rakic - 2012 - Filozofija I Društvo 23 (2):91-103.
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.
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.


Added to PP

42 (#327,920)

6 months
5 (#242,735)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter B. Reiner
University of British Columbia

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.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement.Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu - 2012 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press UK. Edited by Julian Savulescu.
The ethical project.Philip Kitcher - 2011 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Moral enhancement and freedom.John Harris - 2010 - Bioethics 25 (2):102-111.
Moral enhancement.Thomas Douglas - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3):228-245.

View all 45 references / Add more references