Why is Cognitive Enhancement Deemed Unacceptable? The Role of Fairness, Deservingness, and Hollow Achievements
Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016)
AbstractWe ask why pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) is generally deemed morally unacceptable by lay people. Our approach to this question has two core elements. First, we employ an interdisciplinary perspective, using philosophical rationales as base for generating psychological models. Second, by testing these models we investigate how different normative judgments on PCE are related to each other. Based on an analysis of the relevant philosophical literature, we derive two psychological models that can potentially explain the judgment that PCE is unacceptable: the “Unfairness-Undeservingness Model” and the “Hollowness-Undeservingness Model.” The Unfairness-Undeservingness Model holds that people judge PCE to be unacceptable because they take it to produce unfairness and to undermine the degree to which PCE-users deserve reward. The Hollowness-Undeservingness Model assumes that people judge PCE to be unacceptable because they find achievements realized while using PCE hollow and undeserved. We empirically test both models against each other using a regression-based approach. When trying to predict judgments regarding the unacceptability of PCE using judgments regarding unfairness, hollowness, and undeservingness, we found that unfairness judgments were the only significant predictor of the perceived unacceptability of PCE, explaining about 36% of variance. As neither hollowness nor undeservingness had explanatory power above and beyond unfairness, the Unfairness-Undeservingness Model proved superior to the Hollowness-Undeservingness Model. This finding also has implications for the Unfairness-Undeservingness Model itself: either a more parsimonious single-factor “Fairness Model” should replace the Unfairness-Undeservingness-Model or fairness fully mediates the relationship between undeservingness and unacceptability. Both explanations imply that participants deemed PCE unacceptable because they judged it to be unfair. We conclude that concerns about unfairness play a crucial role in the subjective unacceptability of PCE and discuss the implications of our approach for the further investigation of the psychology of PCE.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.Jeremy Bentham - 1780 - Dover Publications.
Beyond Humanity?: The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement.Allen E. Buchanan - 2011 - Oxford University Press.
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.Jeremy Bentham - 1789/2007 - Philosophical Review 45:527.
Citations of this work
Recognizing the Diversity of Cognitive Enhancements.Walter Veit, Brian D. Earp, Nadira Faber, Nick Bostrom, Justin Caouette, Adriano Mannino, Lucius Caviola, Anders Sandberg & Julian Savulescu - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 11 (4):250-253.
How Pills Undermine Skills: Moralization of Cognitive Enhancement and Causal Selection.Emilian Mihailov, Blanca Rodríguez López, Florian Cova & Ivar R. Hannikainen - 2021 - Consciousness and Cognition 91:103120.
From X-Phi to Bioxphi: Lessons in Conceptual Analysis 2.0.Jonathan Lewis - 2020 - AJOB Empirical Bioethics 11 (1):34-36.
Neuro-Doping and Fairness.Thomas Søbirk Petersen & Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2021 - Neuroethics 14 (2):179-190.
Similar books and articles
If You’Re Smart, We’Ll Make You Smarter: Applying the Reasoning Behind the Development of Honours Programmes to Other Forms of Cognitive Enhancement.Bas Olthof, Anco Peeters, Kimberly Schelle & Pim Haselager - 2013 - In Federica Lucivero & Anton Vedder (eds.), Beyond Therapy v. Enhancement? Multidisciplinary analyses of a heated debate. Pisa University Press. pp. 117-142.
Cognitive Enhancement: Methods, Ethics, Regulatory Challenges. [REVIEW]Nick Bostrom - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (3):311-341.
Australian University Students' Attitudes Towards the Acceptability and Regulation of Pharmaceuticals to Improve Academic Performance.Stephanie Bell, Brad Partridge, Jayne Lucke & Wayne Hall - 2013 - Neuroethics 6 (1):197-205.
Integration of Cognitive and Moral Enhancement.Vojin Rakic - 2012 - Filozofija I Društvo 23 (2):91-103.
On Cognitive and Moral Enhancement: A Reply to Savulescu and Persson.J. Adam Carter & Emma C. Gordon - 2014 - Bioethics 28 (1):153-161.
Risk, Russian-Roulette and Lotteries: Persson and Savulescu on Moral Enhancement.Darryl Gunson & Hugh McLachlan - 2013 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16 (4):877-884.
The Perils of Failing to Enhance: A Response to Persson and Savulescu.E. Fenton - 2010 - Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (3):148-151.
Voluntary Moral Enhancement and the Survival-at-Any-Cost Bias.Vojin Rakić - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (4):246-250.
Justice, Fairness, and Enhancement.Julian Savulescu - 2006 - Annals of New York Academy of Science 1093:321-338.
Cognitive Extension, Enhancement, and the Phenomenology of Thinking.Philip J. Walsh - 2017 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 16 (1):33-51.
From Cognitive to Moral Enhancement: A Possible Reconciliation of Religious Outlooks and the Biotechnological Creation of a Better Human.Vojin Rakic - 2012 - Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 11 (31):113-128.
Putting a Price on Empathy: Against Incentivising Moral Enhancement.Sarah Carter - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (10):825-829.