The Incoherence of Moral Bioenhancement

[Philosophy Now]

Terri Murray responds to an article in Issue 91 that argued that our moral dispositions should be improved by the use of drugs.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/93/The_ ... nhancement

[spike]

This article by Terri Murray nicely helps to show how ridiculous Savulescu and Persson’s argument about moral enhancement is. Murray rightly points out that moral enhancement is best achieved voluntarily, through self-enlightenment and not through a self-appointed moral elite.

[spike]

Philosophy Now gives an award for the fight against stupidity. Moral bioenchancement is a stupid idea; also bad science, which is the main reason for the Against Stupidity Award.

In their book "Unfit For The Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement Savulescu and Persson suggest that the human hormone oxytocin, which is known to make humans more empathetic, should be artificially made and administered to us to make us all more morally aware and fit. But I understand that the hormone testosterone in elevated levels, which is the case in most males, cancels out the good effects of oxytocin. So Savulescu and Persson haven't fully done there research and this is just one of many reasons why their argument for moral bioenhancement is stupid and bad science.

[spike]

Terri Murray gives us this quote:“Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

The moral philosopher Adam Smith made a similar observation: "By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

And that is generally true. But Savulescu and Persson, with their proposed forced moral enhancement of us, want to upset the apple cart and the natural mechanism that Mill and Smith were so astute at seeing.

Again, in their findings and proposals Savulescu and Persson are dabbling in bad science.

[spike]

This article appears in the latest issue of PN whose theme is Nietzsche. So I am thinking there must be a connection between the two. It has to do with Nietzsche's pronouncement that God is Dead, killed off by the prevailing social order, and with the moral malaise he sensed followed as a result. With the death of God the sense was that society's moral compass had gone out the window. After that morals were viewed as social constructs. So I am thinking, if God was still alive our moral compass would still be intact and therefore we wouldn't need the artificial moral enhancement Savulescu and Persson have recommend so that we do right by the world and each other.

[Kayla]

the human hormone oxytocin, which is known to make humans more empathetic, should be artificially made and administered to us to make us all more morally aware

didnt steven pinker write something to the effect that it is not empathy that is holding him back from murdering his academic rivals?