Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (3):130-131 (2011)

Moral enhancement is a topic that has sparked much current interest in the world of bioethics. The possibility of making people ‘better,’ not just in the conventional enhancement sense of improving health and other desirable qualities and capacities, but by making them somehow more moral, more decent, altogether better people, has attracted attention from both advocates 1 2 and sceptics 3 alike. The concept of moral enhancement, however, is fraught with difficult questions, theoretical and practical. What does it actually mean to be ‘more moral’? How would moral enhancement be defined and would it necessarily, as some have claimed, make the world a better or safer place? How would or could such enhancement be achieved safely and without undue constraint on personal liberty and autonomy? On this subject, a recent paper by Crockett et al 4 investigating the effects of the neurotransmitter serotonin on moral decision-making provides an intriguing scientific basis for examining what might or might not constitute moral enhancement. The study involved treatment with citalopram, a drug that increases the action of serotonin in the brain, and subsequent analysis of participants' decision-making behaviour in two different situations involving moral dilemmas: the well-known ‘Trolley Problem’ 5 and the ‘Ultimatum Game’. 6 The researchers found that citalopram promoted what they call ‘prosocial behaviour’, increasing the participants' aversion to causing direct harm to others: in the first scenario, they were less likely to select the option that required killing one in order to save five, and in the second, less likely to reject unfair offers at the expense of others. The Crockett study is fascinating both for its insight into human behaviour and because it appears to demonstrate that, at least on some accounts of moral behaviour, serotonin may in fact be a …
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.2010.041434
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,163
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Neuroethics and the Possible Types of Moral Enhancement.John R. Shook - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 3 (4):3-14.
What It’s Like to Be Good.John Harris - 2012 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21 (3):293-305.
SSRIs as Moral Enhancement Interventions: A Practical Dead End.Harris Wiseman - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 5 (3):21-30.

View all 25 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Voluntary Moral Enhancement and the Survival-at-Any-Cost Bias.Vojin Rakić - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (4):246-250.
Moral Enhancement.Thomas Douglas - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3):228-245.
Moral Enhancement and Freedom.John Harris - 2011 - Bioethics 25 (2):102-111.
The Perils of Moral Enhancement.Aleksandar Dobrijevic - 2012 - Filozofija I Društvo 23 (2):104-110.
Moral Transhumanism: The Next Step.M. N. Tennison - 2012 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (4):405-416.
Thinking Across Species—a Critical Bioethics Approach to Enhancement.Richard Twine - 2007 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (6):509-523.
Should We Enhance Animals?S. Chan - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (11):678-683.
On the Social Dimensions of Moral Psychology.John D. GreenwooD - 2011 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 41 (4):333-364.


Added to PP index

Total views
60 ( #190,181 of 2,506,536 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #102,889 of 2,506,536 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes