Neurobiology and the Good: Is It Possible to Make a Person Moral?
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-2-87-103
EDN: OQGNBT
Abstract
With the discovery of the possibility of neurobiologically and genetically interpreting the actions of a moral agent, the issue of the status of morality returned to applied ethics with renewed vigor. The biotechnological understanding of society as a whole has been a long-running trend in technoscience and can be considered as a transgression of (bio-) technologies into the sphere of ethics. The essence of the conflict between bio-conservative ethics and techno-oriented utilitarians lies in the plane of violation of the fundamental value of autonomy (J. Harris) and the destruction of the principle of solidarity and equality (A. Buchanan). Supporters of techno-determined moral action as conditions for the expansion of technology into the field of morality put forward the predictability of consequences as a condition for the legitimation of technology (N. Agar), the need to prevent maximum harm (J. Savulescu, I. Persson) and the right to an autonomous choice of a biotechnological regulation of morality (V. Rakic). At the center of the discussion is the problem of the good, for the practical solution of which moral outsourcing mechanisms have already been envisaged (e.g. the service of triage officers in disaster medicine, extended informed consent for biobanks). The article compares moral action as a choice, moral action as a coercion and moral action as outsourcing, and determines the place of the neurobiological interpretation of good and moral action within the theoretical understanding of a moral act in applied ethics. In particular, the role of a cognitive act in the context of a moral act is examined, the problem of deferred risks and their regulation when making a moral decision is analyzed. It is concluded that one of the manifestations of the impact of (bio) technology on a person is the complicacy and transformation of moral decision-making models, in connection with which the universal methods that formulate a moral action (moral act as a choice) can be supplemented by new models that constitute good and moral action.
About the Author
Roman R. BelyaletdinovRussian Federation
PHd, Senior Research Fellow, Department of
Humanitarian Expertise and Bioethics Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
References
1. Agar N. (2014) A question about defining moral bioenhancement. Journal of Medical
2. Ethics, 40 (6): 369-370.
3. Born J., Lange T., Kern W. еt al. (2002) Sniffing neuropeptides: a transnasal approach
4. to the human brain. Nature neuroscience, 5 (6): 514-516.
5. Buchanan A. (2009) Moral status and human enhancement. Philosophy & Public
6. Affairs, 37: 346-381.
7. Carter C.S. (2003) Developmental consequences of oxytocin. Physiology & behavior, 79
8. (3): 383-397.
9. Donaldson Z.R., Young L.J. (2008) Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of
10. sociality. Science, 322 (5903): 900-904.
11. Emanuel J.E., Persad G., Upshur R. еt al. (2020) Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical
12. Resources in the Time of Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine, 382 (21): 2049-2055.
13. Gyngell C., Douglas T., Savulescu J. (2017) The ethics of germline gene editing. Journal
14. of Applied Philosophy, 34 (4): 498-513.
15. Harris J. (2016) How to be good, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Haidt J., Hersh M.A. (2001) Sexual morality: The cultures and emotions of
17. conservatives and liberals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31 (1): 191-221.
18. Holm S. (2019) Precaution, threshold risk and public deliberation. Bioethics, 33 (2):
19. -260.
20. Kosfeld M., Heinrichs M., Zak P., Fischbacher U. (2005) Oxytocin increases trust in
21. humans. Nature, 435 (7042): 673-676.
22. Mikkelsen R.B., Gjerris M., Waldemar G., Sandøe P. (2019) Broad consent for biobanks
23. is best—provided it is also deep. BMC Medical Ethics, 20 (1): 1-12.
24. Persson I., Savulescu J. (2012) Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement,
25. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.
26. Rommetveit K., Wynne B. (2017) Technoscience, imagined publics and public
27. imaginations. Public Understanding of Science, 26 (2): 133-147.
28. Rakić V., Wiseman H. (2018) Different games of moral bioenhancement. Bioethics,
29. (2): 103-110.
30. Rakić V. (2019) Genome Editing for Involuntary Moral Enhancement. Cambridge
31. Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 28: 46-54.
32. Ruscio M.G., Sweeny T., Hazelton J., Suppatkul P., Carter C.S. (2007) Social environment
33. regulates corticotropin releasing factor, corticosterone and vasopressin in juvenile
34. prairie voles. Hormones and Behavior, 51 (1): 54-61.
35. Savulescu J., Persson I. (2012) Moral enhancement, freedom and the god machine.
36. The Monist, 95 (3): 399-421.
37. Suhler C., Churchland P. (2011) The neurobiological basis of morality. The Oxford
38. handbook of neuroethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 33-58.
39. Weiner K., Martin P., Richards M., Tutton R. (2017) Have we seen the geneticisation
40. of society? Expectations and evidence. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39 (7): 1–16.
Review
For citations:
Belyaletdinov R.R. Neurobiology and the Good: Is It Possible to Make a Person Moral? Sociology of Power. 2020;32(2):87-103. https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-2-87-103. EDN: OQGNBT