Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford, UK.
Bioethics. 2013 Mar;27(3):160-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01919.x. Epub 2011 Nov 17.
Some argue that humans should enhance their moral capacities by adopting institutions that facilitate morally good motives and behaviour. I have defended a parallel claim: that we could permissibly use biomedical technologies to enhance our moral capacities, for example by attenuating certain counter-moral emotions. John Harris has recently responded to my argument by raising three concerns about the direct modulation of emotions as a means to moral enhancement. He argues (1) that such means will be relatively ineffective in bringing about moral improvements, (2) that direct modulation of emotions would invariably come at an unacceptable cost to our freedom, and (3) that we might end up modulating emotions in ways that actually lead to moral decline. In this article I outline some counter-intuitive potential implications of Harris' claims. I then respond individually to his three concerns, arguing that they license only the very weak conclusion that moral enhancement via direct emotion modulation is sometimes impermissible. However I acknowledge that his third concern might, with further argument, be developed into a more troubling objection to such enhancements.
有人认为,人类应该通过采用有助于产生道德动机和行为的制度来增强自己的道德能力。我曾为一个类似的观点辩护:我们可以允许使用生物医学技术来增强我们的道德能力,例如通过减弱某些反道德情感。约翰·哈里斯(John Harris)最近对我的论点做出了回应,他提出了关于直接调节情感作为道德增强手段的三个担忧。他认为:(1)这些手段在实现道德改善方面相对无效;(2)直接调节情感将不可避免地以牺牲我们的自由为代价;(3)我们可能会以导致道德堕落的方式调节情感。在本文中,我概述了哈里斯观点的一些反直觉的潜在影响。然后,我逐个回应了他的三个担忧,认为这些担忧仅允许得出一个非常薄弱的结论,即通过直接情感调节进行道德增强有时是不允许的。然而,我承认他的第三个担忧可能会进一步发展成为对这种增强的更令人担忧的反对意见。