Philosophy Now Forum

Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson argue that artificial moral enhancement is now essential if humanity is to avoid catastrophe.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/91/Moral_Enhancement

This article bothers me.

The authors of the above article write with an authority they lack. They are wearing their biases and temperaments on their sleeves. They think they understand what is going on but are far too closed to present events and unfoldings to make the determinations they have. And it is obvious to me, like it should be to everybody else, that they are not sufficiently detached from today's events to make such conclusions, as to us being morally unfit to tackle our ecological problems.

The authors concluded that we don't have the collective morals to face the present world and its complexities. Somebody probably drew that same conclusion with the outbreak of the Industrial Revolution. However, we are still here. Moreover, the Industrial Revolution enhanced our morals and values, just like the present situation will further enhance our morals and values.

In order to be enhanced in any way humans have had to face crises and all sorts of revolutions. No only do humans need crises and revolutions to enhance them but also to rejuvenated them and Civilization. For all the authors of this article know we could now be facing one of those situations, designed to enhance us even further.

Furthermore, the authors understanding of liberal democracy as meaning the end of history is quite naive. I mean, every intelligent person knows that history will never end as long as there are humans on earth. (Francis Fukuyama, the author of The End Of History, concluded that history would not end until science did, which is unlikely.) Liberal democracy is just the end of a history, the history of determining how best and ultimately humankind will govern itself. The unfolding of human governance has come to this endpoint - liberal democracy, as the best that can be had considering humankind's collective and idiosyncratic needs and aspirations. And because liberal democracy is so open and flexible it is probably the best means of discovering what ails our planet and how to remedy it. The world has to find a sustainable balance. Liberal democracy affords the best chance of doing that.

The authors of this article in PN, Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson, have it wrong in thinking we only have the capacity to be interested in the welfare of our own kind and of the tribes we belong to. They think we haven't psychologically evolved enough to see the bigger picture and deal with the world on a global scale. According to them we are still small minded and lack the moral insight to look beyond our own self-interests and be concerned for the broader world. I disagree.

I heard author Timothy Findlay once say that we haven't learnt anything since the Peloponnesian War. But we have. I think he was exaggerating because he was frustrated by some human behavior or event. Well, I thing Savulescu and Persson are also exaggerating in their article because they are frustrated with what they perceive in us as the lack of moral backbone to do right by the world and its people.

Ralph Waldo Emerson was quoted as saying that events are in the saddle and ride mankind. Not only do they ride humankind but they also shape it. We have been ridden and shaped greatly by historic events like WW2 and 9/11. But in their article Savulescu and Persson didn't mention any historic events. If they had been more astute and less blinkered in their views they would have recognized the power of historic events and how they have morally enhanced us. Our reflecting on them have improved and expanded our morals sensibilities. For instance, after the horrific events of WWI and 2 humankind established the United Nation as an incubator for humankind's moral enhancement. The UN forged and implemented universal human rights, an event that has been a game changer for the world and one of the greatest achievements in the annals of human moral enhancement ever.

This article on moral enhancement ends on a absurd note. It advocates that someday we will have drugs that morally enhances us. The drug companies will love that. It sounds a bit like eugenics.

Maybe the most popular drug will be the one that converts a climate change denier into one that isn't. I think a better drug would be one that makes us pollution filters like trees.

And what will happen if one doesn't take their medicine?

"Moral Enhancement: Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson argue that artificial moral enhancement is now essential if humanity is to avoid catastrophe."

One thing the authors of this article don't seem to recognize is where our moral values truly come from and how they are enhanced. Morals don't come from scriptures and dictates. Well, initially they may come from scriptures and dictates. But morals are not developed or enhanced that way. Moral values are meaningless unless they are put into action. We have to go through the motions and clashes with others to fully appreciate them.

The way morals are developed and enhanced is through people being engaged with each other, people engaging one another in numerous endeavors like politics or economics. Morals are developed and enhanced by people being active and going through the motions - experimenting, making mistakes and discovery. The less developed world is so because it lacks such activity and engagement.

What Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson propose, like so many over pessimistic environmentalist, is that we should stop being so active and curtail our growth. But if we do that the chances are we will not fully appreciate our predicament or learn new ways of dealing with it.

The authors make the mistake of thinking that we don't have the morals to deal with our present interconnected, globalized world. They believe the morals we have are suited for a less sophisticated world, when we lived in tribes and were more warlike. I mean, where have they been. Can't they see that the majority of the world shuns tribalism and accepts openness more than ever before. In turn that openness has made the world more peaceful and stable.

"Moral Enhancement: Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson argue that artificial moral enhancement is now essential if humanity is to avoid catastrophe."

I am not sure about this thing Savulescu and Persson call artificial moral enhancement. Can morals be artificial? And if they are, are they meaningful?

Anyway, the other day an event occurred that I consider one of moral enhancement in favor of the environment. It has to do with a physicist, Richard Muller, who was a serious Global-Warming Skeptic but no longer is. After three years of research he came to the conclusion that the world is really getting warmer and that human activity is chiefly to blame. Mr. Muller's credentials and clout are quite significant. So his about-face is dramatic and should help in changing attitudes towards the environment in order to improve things. Thus I see him as a important catalyst in the endeavor of environmental moral enhancement.

Moral enhancement doesn't have much meaning or impact unless a significant portion of the population shares in it. If there isn't moral enhancement on a large scale it's difficult to change attitudes on anything. There has to be in place a mass group moral enhancement in order to make a difference. This is way Muller's shift on global-warming is so significant. His stature, and the impact of his shift, will help change attitudes and enhance morals towards the environment throughout the world. More significant is the fact that his change of heart came naturally and independent of a particular agenda or government interference.

I am not sure that Savulescu and Persson appreciate this fact, that a consensus has to develop, independently and naturally, within a majority before an attitude will change convincingly and for the better. I have seen this consensus building. However, in the way they argue I don't think the authors have.

I can't believe how this article by S & P ends, suggesting that we should consider the use of morally enhancing drugs. I mean, how could this be done on a large scale so that it would make a significant difference in human behavior? Perhaps it would be better to put it in the water, like fluoride, where governments can easily reach more people at less expense or difficulty. But I remember when fluoride was first introduced in tap water to improve children's teeth. It was thought by many to be a communist plot to gain control. So you can imagine how a biomedical means of moral enhancement on a large scale might go over.

I remember how a Western agency (perhaps it was done through the UN) tried to introduce contraception into India in order to lower the birth rate. As soon as the agency moved on the mothers given the contraceptive pills threw them out because they believe it was a means of outside control or because of some superstition. It also when against their culture of procreation.

A similar thing happened in Africa with the dispensing of Aids medicine. Many of those who could have benefited from it refused to take it for superstitious reason or because they thought it was part of a Western conspiracy to control them. However, the intransigencies that existed both in India and Africa were eventually overcome through education, social reform, cajoling and patience. This is how human moral enhancement is really achieved, through education, social reform, cajoling and patience.

S & P want to use biomedical means of moral enhancement because they believe it would be more effective than traditional means of moral education or social reform. Unfortunately, though, they don't recognize how much education and social reform has done in the field of moral enhancement. Perhaps they don't recognize it because they consider the pace to have been too slow. Nevertheless, they think biomedical means is the way to go. But that could take longer or backfire in all sorts of ways.

I suspect that S & P are probably the types of people who are against generically modified foods. So it is strange to me that they would be in favor of doing something like generically modifying our brains or mind altering so that we might improve morally. Sounds like something straight out of brain washing and totalitarianism.

Many times our moral enhancement has come from events. One of the events that recently was observed was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan to end WW2. However, S & P don't recognize this as a moral enhancing experience, because they don't view experience as morally enhancing. But because of that horrific event, which left a lasting impression and deep scares on the psyche of humankind, the world has collectively agreed that it is morally wrong to use such weapons again. So far the world has stuck to that moral decision.

Let's hope that the A bombs doesn't get into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations. Perhaps, though, someday we can get terrorists and rouge nations to take S & P's medicine so that they no longer constitute or pose a moral hazard.

Edmund Burke, the conservative philosopher, would have detested the environmental moral enhancement these guys are proposing. If he was around today he would argue that any approach to protecting the environment should evolve organically and not be forced on us. In other words, if people are so concerned about the environment they will do something about it without being artificially or biomedically altered as S&P are proposing. However, just because I mention Burke doesn't mean I totally agree with his view.

S&P make a statement that is totally rash and unfounded: "We have radically transformed our social and natural environments by technology, while our moral dispositions have remained virtually unchanged."

S&P talk disparagingly about liberal democracy. They say that we are in need of moral enhancement, not more liberal democracy. They believe that liberal democracy has deterred our moral enhancement because it encourage hedonism. However, one thing they don't seem to recognize or understand is that liberal democracy is itself a product of moral enhancement. It is about the rule of law, human rights and self-determination, morals and values the world has been fighting over for centuries. During the Cold War liberal democracy fought and defeated its arch rival communism, a very immoral system of totalitarianism. Today most of the world has accepted liberal democracy as the preferable way to be governed because of its heightened moral values, social justice and fairness.

S&P wrongfully argue that our present morals are suited more for a world of the past when it was tribalistic and divided. But if they cared to examine things more closely they might notice how tribalism has been receding as the world has grown more interconnected and accepting of liberal democracy. Because of the growth of liberal democracy and its support for the individual the world has become more accommodating and less racially divided.

Our moral disposition has not remained virtually unchanged or stagnant as S&P insist. There are many instances when our moral values have changed and been enhanced. One occasion was during the Cold War. It was called the Cold War because it wasn't a hot war as were WW1 and WW2. Those two previous hot wars ironical helped enhanced our morals, instilling in us with the moral imperative that for the sake of humanity we could not longer engage in such wars. During the Cold War occurred another moral enhancing moment that effected the whole world. It was about the expansion of human rights with the signing of the Helsinki Accords in 1975. That accord was signed by all the powers including the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union, a deed that contributed to its demise and thus the further moral enhancing of the world.

It was fortunate that the Soviet Union and its influence eventually collapse because under it occurred environment degradation that went undetected and was more of a threat to the world's ecology than could have been imagined.

Edmund Burke would have been horrified at what he US has become.

It is not possible to predict what he would have said of the problems of the environment as the modern changes are beyond any precedent seen in his day. But it is clear enough that you don't really understand Conservatism.
Conservation and the protection of values material and moral are part of parcel of Conservatism. It is likely that he would have resisted the destruction of the country during the industrial revolution as many that followed him did; he would have resisted the railway blundering its way across ancient hunting and farm lands.
He may also have resisted the growth of technology and industrialisation on grounds that it was antithetical to The Sublime and the Beautiful.

You are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

chaz wyman wrote:Edmund Burke would have been horrified at what he US has become.

It is not possible to predict what he would have said of the problems of the environment as the modern changes are beyond any precedent seen in his day. But it is clear enough that you don't really understand Conservatism.
Conservation and the protection of values material and moral are part of parcel of Conservatism. It is likely that he would have resisted the destruction of the country during the industrial revolution as many that followed him did; he would have resisted the railway blundering its way across ancient hunting and farm lands.
He may also have resisted the growth of technology and industrialisation on grounds that it was antithetical to The Sublime and the Beautiful.

You are proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Edmund Burke was a fascist toad, and it's a good thing that he would have been offended by America. The Rights of Man is what America adopted, not Burke's apologetics for Monarchy.

S&P write: "Our success in learning to manipulate the world around us has left us facing two major threats: climate change – along with the attendant problems caused by increasingly scarce natural resources – and war, using immensely powerful weapons."

In their book "Unfit for the Future: The Urgent Need for Moral Enhancement" (on which this article in PN is based) S&P overlook another possible major threat, besides ecological degradation and war, Unemployment. But, then, they may think that unemployment isn't so bad because unemployment should retard consumption, which in turn should retard the degradation of the environment and the depletion of resources. Nevertheless, unemployment could bring about serious social upheavals and perhaps even wars.

S&P write: "We have radically transformed our social and natural environments by technology, while our moral dispositions have remained virtually unchanged."

S&P didn't mention another possible catastrophe technological transformation has wrought: Robotics. It could pose a very serious threat. Robots are fueling unemployment throughout the world. They have become very sophisticated and cheaper than humans to employ. (They don't require pensions or holidays.) Throughout the world robots are taking away or replacing jobs, even in the high tech industry. As a result one can imagine the resurgence of luddites on a massive scale. But is the world morally prepared for the likely hood of a backlash due to an ever increasing robotic one, leading to fewer jobs? And if there are fewer jobs who will have the money to buy the stuff robots make? The social and moral implications could be horrendous.

The developed world is probably better fit morally to deal with the growth in unemployment due to increased mechanization and robotics. But is the developing world equally prepared?

Perhaps the unemployed will someday go into outer space to populate it, like they once came to the New World from the Old.

Liberal democracy has become the leading system of human governance in the world. And for those who are still without it their hope is that someday they will also be blessed by it. In picking it as the predominant system could history have gotten it wrong? According to Savulescu and Persson, the authors of Moral Enhancement, history did make a mistake.

One reason why S&P are leery of liberal democracy is because it supports the individual over the group, thus, as they believe, making it impossible to reach a consensus on how best to proceed with the environment and climate change. And because it is such a strong supporter of individualism it also champions the pursuit of self-interest, encouraging both materialism and consumerism - pursuits that are viewed as detrimental to the environment. They also view liberal democracy as supporting and encouraging multiculturalism, another institution that leads to the fragmentation of society, thus another impediment in reaching a consensus on the environment. In other words, S&P view liberal democracy and its priorities as a threat to the environment. But in arguing for an alternative they are wrongheaded, proposing overbearing authoritarianism as a solution.

S&P are missing the irony of liberal democracy, and the world for that matter. While it may be contributing to the spoiling of the environment in championing the individual over the group liberal democracy also nurtures, equally from all quarters, the entrepreneurship and individual actions that may and can deliver the remedies to improve things. Solutions for environmental degradation and depletion of resources is much more likely to emerge from the ingenuity of individuals than the collective reasoning of the group. That was tried and failed under the totalitarianism of communism. Moreover, as experience shows, it is from the demands of free individuals putting pressure on their governments that have produced the policies to change and improve things, not the other way around.

The solutions that S&P are proposing for improving our environment are alarming and scary. For one, they want to alter human behavior biomedically so that we act in unison. That sounds impossible considering the multifaceted nature of the world. It also sounds like Big Sister. It might also turn us into zombies, taking away our desires to do anything, including cleaning up the environment.

I think the authors have somewhat downplayed the objections – unsurprisingly perhaps but I would have some questions.

Biological enhancement has a high profile at the moment in the media which revolves around sport so to take this as an example – this seems relatively strait forward in terms of functionality. A cyclist needs to cycle faster or longer and there are a plethora of performance enhancing drugs to help with this end. Is there a corresponding end point in morality – a goal to which the enhancement strives – akin to winning the Tour de France? An advocate of Kantian ethics would probably see a very different end point to Arne Naess’s almost spiritual development, as shown in Warwick Fox’s paper on the PN website. To return to the cycling analogy, even here different enhancements would be necessary to win the sprint as compared to the Tour de France. Could we ever be sure we were enhancing the right thing? A more reasonable example would be artificially enhancing intelligence – but even here there are tangible goals, increasing memory, problem solving skills ect. Its unclear to me if there is something similar in morality.
Very much related but what exactly would be enhanced? Is there a kind of moral muscle which you can inject steroids into to make you a better person?
Would people have a choice – it seems unlikely that someone would willing submit to a biological enhancement to change their morality. I suspect most people would feel that their morality was pretty on the ball but may feel they would respond to rational argument. How many people would think ‘I don’t believe that is morally correct but I must be wrong therefore I will take a drug that will make me more likely to believe that is the case.’
If not choice then we have the uncomfortable question of who decides – would a criminal be forced to take moral enhancements upon being found guilty? In the aftermath of 9/11 would we have decided all potential Islamic terrorists needed moral enhancement or in the aftermath of the banking crisis that all persons who work in the finance industry need morally enhancing?
At the moment I think the authors have only asked the easy questions.
Mark

Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson are the authors of "Unfit for the Future: The Urgent Need for Moral Enhancement" on which this article is based.

Were we ever morally fit for the future? Persson and Savulescu don't think we ever were. According to them we were only ever morally suited for our own circle of people and within our own tribes. Today, according to them, we are out of our depth and are incapable of morally dealing with the multifaceted, multicultural world we live in. I wonder what rock they have been living under?

If what they believe is true the events of 9/11 should have triggered a world war because humankind was not morally fit to restrain itself. The terrorist attacks of that day should have triggered a clash of civilizations if what P&S believe was true, just like the terrorist were hoping. Instead the world continued on its course of integration, have learned from the past that wars generally don't solve anything. That I would call a moral upgrade.

Today humankind is more morally fit that it was before WW1 or WW2. If the world had been as morally fit then as it is today those wars would never have happened. In a sense those two wars occurred to organize and prepare us for the future. So far so good because the world hasn't been at war with itself for more that 75 years. To prevent world wars the United Nations was established after WW2. If the establishment of the League Of Nations had been successful after WW1 WW2 would never have occurred.

I think it is odd that P&S never mentioned any moral philosophers in their book. They could have mentioned at least two, Adam Smith and Kant. Of the two Kant probably would have sided with P&S, thinking that we are too ignorant to morally think for ourselves and that we need a hierarchy to do the thinking and moralizing for us. Smith, however, had the more practical approach, that we should learn to moralize as individuals and in the process create a more durable, sustainable system of governance.

This month is the fiftieth anniversary of Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". In it he introduced the phrase paradigm shift. I am thinking, then, what the authors of this article "Moral Enhancement" are really wanting is a paradigm shift in our morals.

As I am reminded, before Kuhn's interpretation of science there was the Whig interpretation of science, that science evolves dialectically. Kuhn was saying that isn't necessarily the case. Whig science takes the liberal view that humans progress through experience. Its opposite is a conservative view known as "Toryism." As Wikipedia explains, "Toryism rests on doubt in human nature; it distrusts improvement, clings to traditional institutions, prefers the past to the future. It is a sentiment rather than a principle." It seems to me that Kuhn and the authors of the article being discussed here don't trust human nature.

In light of this, the authors of this article, Persson and Savulescu, come across as being conservative because they mistrust liberal democracy, the world's premier governing system. Most likely Kuhn didn't have any time for it either.