The High-Stakes Debate Over Moral Bioenhancement
If you could take a pill to become a better person, would you? Scientists are now seriously debating this question, and the answer is far from simple.
Imagine a world where you could reduce your racial biases with medication, increase your empathy through brain stimulation, or strengthen your sense of fairness via genetic engineering. This isn't science fiction—it's the emerging frontier of moral bioenhancement (MBE), the use of biomedical means to morally improve individuals 4 .
Did you know? As humanity faces global challenges from climate change to the threat of nuclear warfare, some scientists argue that our moral psychology has failed to evolve at the same pace as our technological capabilities 3 .
But this proposed solution raises profound questions: Would enhancing our morality undermine the very essence of our humanity? Might we lose our moral selves in the pursuit of moral improvement?
Moral bioenhancement refers to the use of biomedical interventions—including pharmaceuticals, brain stimulation techniques, and genetic technologies—to improve moral character, motives, or behavior 6 . Unlike traditional moral improvement through education or upbringing, MBE aims directly at biological underpinnings of morality.
The concept gained significant attention after the publication of two seminal papers in the Journal of Applied Philosophy 1 .
Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu's influential book Unfit for the Future argued that MBE has become necessary for human survival 4 .
Researchers are investigating various biomedical interventions that could influence moral dispositions:
| Intervention | Proposed Moral Effect | Current Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Oxytocin | Increases trust, empathy, and generosity 6 | Shown to mediate prosocial attitudes in studies |
| SSRIs (e.g., Prozac) | Promotes fair-mindedness and cooperation 6 | Increases aversion to harming others in research |
| Propranolol | Reduces implicit racial bias 6 | Diminishes utilitarian judgment in moral dilemmas |
| Psilocybin | Proposed to enhance morality and happiness 2 | Mixed evidence; one study showed no effect on moral decision-making |
| Deep Brain Stimulation | Modifies behaviors and potentially addictive tendencies 6 | Experimental stage for various behavioral modifications |
Philosopher Thomas Douglas argued that improving moral character is morally good, so any biomedical treatment that genuinely achieves this does moral good 4 .
Persson and Savulescu contend that humanity faces existential threats due to a mismatch between our evolved moral psychology and modern conditions 3 .
"Our technological capabilities to cause mass harm have far outstripped our moral development, creating what they view as an urgent need for moral enhancement." 4
Some advocates also employ what Mark Alan Walker termed the "companions in innocence" strategy: if we accept traditional moral education through parenting and schooling, we should similarly accept biomedical means to achieve the same ends 4 . As Walker proposed in his "Genetic Virtue Project," since personality traits are heritable, we might use genetic engineering to increase moral traits while reducing immoral ones 4 .
Despite what might seem like noble aims, moral bioenhancement has faced significant criticism across multiple fronts, with perhaps the most profound concern being the potential loss of moral identity and autonomy.
Philosopher John Harris raises one of the most evocative objections, which he calls the "Freedom to Fall." Harris argues that the freedom to do wrong is essential to moral agency 4 . Without the genuine possibility of choosing immorally, moral behavior loses its meaning and virtue. He references Milton's Paradise Lost, where God states His creations are "sufficient to have stood, though free to fall" 4 . If we biomedically eliminate our capacity for moral failure, we may undermine the very foundation of virtue.
Critics question whether we can ever achieve sufficient consensus on what constitutes "moral improvement" to justify implementing MBE 1 . Different ethical systems—utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics—disagree fundamentally about what makes actions morally right 4 . As one literature review noted, "The ongoing debate about moral bioenhancement has been exceptionally stimulating, but it is defined by extreme polarization and lack of consensus about any relevant aspect of MBE" 3 .
Perhaps the most alarming concern involves MBE's potential as a tool of oppression. Timothy Brown, winner of the 2021 David Roscoe Award for an Early-Career Essay on Science, Ethics, and Society, warns that "Arguments in favor of moral bioenhancement fail to consider how marginalized people have been (and still are) accused of being less moral than their oppressors" .
While philosophers and scientists vigorously debate MBE, what does the general public think? A 2021 study conducted in Serbia offers fascinating insights into public attitudes, using rigorous methodology to explore this question 6 .
The researchers recruited participants aged 15 and older to complete an online questionnaire about moral bioenhancement. The survey contained several components:
The findings revealed nuanced public attitudes toward MBE. Factor analysis identified four primary drivers of respondents' attitudes:
| Factor | Description | Influence on MBE Support |
|---|---|---|
| General Closeness | Comfort with enhancement concepts | Positive correlation with support |
| Fear of Change | Anxiety about alteration to human nature | Negative correlation with support |
| Security | Concern about safety and risk | Negative correlation with support |
| Voluntariness | Preference for optional rather than mandatory use | Positive correlation when voluntary |
The study confirmed that the means used for moral enhancement significantly impact public acceptance. Participants were consistently less supportive of pharmacological interventions compared to non-pharmacological ones, echoing findings from previous U.S. studies 6 . This suggests people perceive something uniquely troubling about using drugs to alter moral dispositions.
Additionally, higher education levels and familiarity with MBE concepts correlated with greater acceptance, while preferences for deontological versus utilitarian ethical reasoning also influenced attitudes 6 .
Research has identified several substances that show potential for influencing moral dispositions, though most evidence remains preliminary:
| Substance | Biological Mechanism | Observed Effects on Morality | Risks and Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Psilocybin | Serotonin receptor agonist (particularly 5-HT2AR) 2 | Increased emotional empathy; no observed effect on moral decision-making 2 | Hallucinogenic effects; risk of psychosis; potentially persistent perception disorder 2 |
| Oxytocin | Neuropeptide that mediates social bonding 6 | Increased trust, trustworthiness, empathy, and generosity 6 | May favor in-group members over out-group members |
| SSRIs | Enhanced serotonin function 6 | Increased cooperation; greater aversion to harming others 6 | Multiple side effects; unclear long-term impact on moral agency |
| Propranolol | Beta-blocker affecting emotional arousal | Reduced implicit racial bias; less utilitarian judgment 6 | Influences emotional components of morality only |
MBE interventions target specific brain regions and neurotransmitter systems associated with moral cognition and behavior.
Most MBE research remains in early experimental phases with limited human trials and uncertain long-term effects.
Each potential MBE method raises unique ethical questions about autonomy, identity, and unintended consequences.
The debate over moral bioenhancement ultimately forces us to confront fundamental questions about what makes us moral beings. Are our moral selves defined by our biological dispositions, our conscious choices, or some combination of both? Would modifying the biological underpinnings of morality enhance our moral agency or undermine it?
As the research reveals, public attitudes remain nuanced—people distinguish between different means of enhancement and value voluntariness 6 . Meanwhile, critics warn that even well-intentioned moral enhancement could inadvertently eliminate the "freedom to fall" that gives moral choice its meaning 4 , or worse, become a tool of social control that suppresses legitimate resistance to injustice .
What emerges clearly is that as biotechnology advances, we must proceed with both caution and humility. The path forward requires inclusive democratic deliberation that includes diverse voices, especially those who might be most vulnerable to misuse of these technologies.
However we choose to address our moral limitations, we must ensure that in attempting to become "better," we do not lose the essential moral selves that give meaning to that very pursuit.