In the film titled Serenity, which takes place in the universe of the Firefly series, the main characters discover a planet with millions of deceased inhabitants. As it turns out, an experiment was conducted on this planet involving the spraying of an anti-aggression drug. However, along with this, it suppressed the very will to live, and in 10% of the population, it caused a side effect with the opposite result — a complete removal of ethical barriers, turning them into bloodthirsty predators.
Opponents of the idea of moral bioenhancement, which consists of improving people’s moral qualities through biomedical technologies, may use the plot of this film as another opportunity to criticize it. In general, they have already put forward various arguments against such a practice. But they should clearly not rush into this, because all their concerns can be answered. This is exactly what philosopher Barbara Stock did in one of her articles, which we will now examine in more detail.
The first problem lies in the impossibility of providing a general definition of morality, since different moral theories offer different answers to questions about good and bad. However, as Stock notes, this is not entirely true, as there are still some universally recognized values. If we look at the example from the film, although the main characters are smugglers who break the law (of course, as libertarians, we see nothing wrong with this), they are not devoid of basic moral principles, such as caring for one another, fairness toward the vulnerable, and a willingness to risk themselves for others.
The second problem points out that everything could end badly, as happened in the plot of the film. But it is important to understand that the film shows an extremely negligent intervention — without clinical trials, without ethically permissible procedures, and without an overall understanding of the risks. Of course, no one will dispute that real researchers must take all of this into account in any of their actions.
The third problem arises from the fact that morality is not some separate trait, but a complex system of interconnected qualities and motives. However, this is also a question of the correct approach to implementation. One should focus on interventions that are minimal and take such interrelationships into account. To Stock’s argument, let us also add the fact that in reality, it is not necessary to suppress aggression specifically — it is only necessary to strengthen inhibiting mechanisms when a person lacks them.
The fourth problem consists of the danger and repressiveness of coercion to undergo biomedical procedures. We know, of course, that total coercion is ethically unacceptable. But what about moderate social methods of pressure to undergo the procedure (and mandatory moral bioenhancement only for those who have already committed acts of violence)? Furthermore, even now there are situations where students and employees resort to taking nootropics to improve their alertness and attention, and thereby cope with the tasks assigned to them. In this sense, moral bioenhancement, which allows a violent individual to manage things so that other people do not see them as a threat and do not exclude them from social interactions, is no different from the question of other forms of human enhancement.
The final problem is the undermining of human freedom and autonomy. There are claims that morality is the ability to choose between good and evil, and if a person cannot choose to commit evil, their moral actions lose any meaning. But Stock rightly notes that any current proposals for moral bioenhancement do not consist of turning people into mechanical robots without choice, but merely in shifting their inclinations toward the more moral. And can we even respect the autonomy, for example, of a person who is directly threatening to commit violence against us? You likely wouldn’t do that yourself!
Of course, the idea of moral bioenhancement requires caution and thorough elaboration. It indeed may carry a number of serious risks. But these risks are not an insurmountable obstacle requiring a categorical rejection of the idea. They can quite well be taken into account and worked through.
