Neuroethics 6 (1):179-187 (2013)

Veljko Dubljevic
North Carolina State University
This paper examines the claims in the debate on cognitive enhancement in neuroethics that society wide pressure to enhance can be expected in the near future. The author uses rational choice modeling to test these claims and proceeds with the analysis of proposed types of solutions. The discourage use, laissez-faire and prohibition types of policy are scrutinized for effectiveness, legitimacy and associated costs. Special attention is given to the moderately liberal discourage use policy (and the gate-keeper and taxation approaches within this framework), as many authors presuppose that this type of policy would best serve public interest. Different more or less articulated models in the taxation approach (Tobacco regulation analogy, Coffee-shop system, Regulatory Authority for Cognitive Enhancements and Economic Disincentives Model) are analyzed from the point of view of justificatory liberalism. The author concludes that prohibition and laissez-faire types of policy would neither be effective nor justified. A moderately liberal public policy shows more promise, but not all approaches within this type of policy would be legitimate and effective. The “gate-keeper” approach and related models could not be justified whereas approach based on taxation with suitable models might be legitimate and effective
Keywords Cognitive enhancement  Public policy  Prisoners’ Dilemma  Justification  Neuroethics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s12152-012-9173-5
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: 71,379
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - New York: Basic Books.
Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.John Rawls (ed.) - 2001 - Harvard University Press.
Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly.Norman Daniels - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.
Anarchy, State, and Utopia.Robert Nozick - 1974 - Philosophy 52 (199):102-105.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Neuroenhancement, Coercion, and Neo-Luddism.Alexandre Erler - 2020 - In Nicole A. Vincent, Thomas Nadelhoffer & Allan McCay (eds.), Neurointerventions and the Law: Regulating Human Mental Capacity. New York, NY, USA: pp. 375-405.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges. [REVIEW]Nick Bostrom - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):311-341.
Cognitive Disability in a Society of Equals.Jonathan Wolff - 2009 - Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):402-415.
Smart Policy: Cognitive Enhancement and the Public Interest.Nick Bostrom - forthcoming - In Julian Savulescu, Ruud ter Muelen & Guy Kahane (eds.), Enhancing Human Capabilities. Wiley-Blackwell.
Bioconservatism, Bioliberalism, and Repugnance.Rebecca Roache & Steve Clarke - 2009 - Monash Bioethics Review 28 (1):04.1-04.21.
An Aristotelian Approach to Cognitive Enhancement.Lubomira V. Radoilska - 2010 - Journal of Value Inquiry 44 (3):365–375.
Moral Enhancement and Freedom.John Harris - 2011 - Bioethics 25 (2):102-111.


Added to PP index

Total views
87 ( #135,454 of 2,519,667 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #406,756 of 2,519,667 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes