Moral Pharmacology

Arts & Sciences Religion & Spirituality
1

[quote]Moral pharmacology is an evolving field that advocates using specific medications to enhance your ability to make moral decisions.

In this month’s British Journal of Psychiatry, psychiatrist Sean Spence argues that while the most attention has been paid to attention-deficit-related drugs, we might want to choose to be more moral as well.

[ul]'Recent considerations of the ethics of cognitive enhancement have specifically excluded consideration of social cognitions (such as empathy, revenge or deception), on the grounds that they are less amenable to quantification. Nevertheless, it would be regrettable if this limitation entirely precluded consideration of what must be an important question for humanity: can pharmacology help us enhance human morality? Might drugs not only make us smarter but also assist us in becoming more ‘humane’?

When voiced in such a way, this proposal can sound absurd, not least since we may suspect that such mental manipulation would render us ‘artificially’ moral. Where would be the benefit of being kinder or more humane as a consequence of medication? This is an understandable (though reflexive) response. However, if we stop to consider what is actually happening in certain psychiatric settings, then we may begin to interrogate this proposal more systematically. I shall argue that within many clinical encounters there may already be a subtle form of moral assistance going on, albeit one that we do not choose to describe in these terms. I argue that we are already deploying certain medications in a way not totally dissimilar to the foregoing proposal: whenever humans knowingly use drugs as a means to improving their future conduct.'[/ul]

For example, people may take medications to help with impulsive or irresponsible decisions, or to reduce their level of aggression or anger.[/quote]

Source.

I find this particularly interesting, as a number of science fiction utopias and dystopias are built on the premise of a pharmacologically or neurologically tamed population (Lem’s 'Return From The Stars, Orwell’s ‘1984’, and Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, for example).

In Arthur C Clarke’s 2061 and 3001 the massive advances of humanity are achieved only as a result of the enforced stigmatization of violence and anti-social behaviour. Critical to the entire process of scientific and social advancement (including the end of crime and war), is the enforced use of technology such as is described in this article.

In Clarke’s future world people with demonstrable criminal tendencies (not acts), are subjected to neurological operations which render them harmless (sometimes by reducing their cognitive facilities to an extremely low level), and since electronic monitoring of people’s thoughts becomes possible, then the detection and punishment of thought crime also becomes possible (and is subsequently implemented for the good of society).

Children are fitted for a ‘braincap’ (think John Christopher’s ‘Tripod’ trilogy, only far more sophisticated), and at this stage they are evaluated for potential mental aberrations which may occur later in life. Corrective surgery or neurological procedures are undertaken if ‘aberrations’ are detected. Tendencies classified as ‘aberrations’ include aggression, religious belief, and the desire to eat meat (vegetarianism is enforced on the population).

The questions which seem to me to be raised by this technology are:

  • If this technology is available, are we morally or ethically obliged to apply it?

  • If this technology is available, are people morally or ethically obliged to submit to it?

  • Can any rational arguments be raised against the enforced use of this technology, given the greater good which it would serve?

Disappointingly, Clarke does not address these questions, other than casually mentioning that in his future world ‘there had been a loss; there were very few memorable characters in this society’.

2

Why do your questions refer to technology when your title and lead article refer to the use of drugs?

Don’t people use drugs to enhance their decision making in all sorts of ways already?

  • Coffee to allow more alert decisions.
  • Nicotine to allow calmer ones (I guess; I’m not a smoker).
  • Alcohol to allow looser, freer ones.
  • Marijuana to allow more relaxed ones.
  • Hallucinogens to allow more far-out, detached, spiritual ones (or whatever).

Not to mention the use of drugs to alter the body and mind in all sorts of ways: pain relief, muscle growth, curative, preventative, rehabilitive, relaxing, invigorating, etc.

So what’s the big deal about using drugs to enhance moral decision making, in what way is it new, and why should one have qualms about it (so long as one isn’t cramming the drugs down another person’s throat involuntarily, which may be what you’re referring to)?

3

Soma! Soma! Soma!

4

The idea has interesting possibilities. The use of sleep-inhibiting drugs on long range fighter/ bomber flights has already been implicated in poor judgment calls resulting in civilian/ friendly deaths. That’s an unintended consequence of another program, and getting positive results will no doubt be far more difficult than stumbling on to screw-ups, but the idea has potential…

5

Because the technology in question is the drugs.

Yes, as already mentioned in the original post:

  • ‘within many clinical encounters there may already be a subtle form of moral assistance going on’

  • ‘I argue that we are already deploying certain medications in a way not totally dissimilar to the foregoing proposal’

  • ‘whenever humans knowingly use drugs as a means to improving their future conduct’

This is new:

  • 'can pharmacology help us enhance human morality?

  • ‘Might drugs not only make us smarter but also assist us in becoming more ‘humane’?’

Can you name a drug currently on the market (either the regular or black market), which makes you more humane? Which enhances your morality? Not merely one which contributes to your capacity for decision making, but which actually contributes to your levels of empathy, revenge, or morality?

As the original article stated:

  • ‘When voiced in such a way, this proposal can sound absurd, not least since we may suspect that such mental manipulation would render us ‘artificially’ moral’

  • ‘Where would be the benefit of being kinder or more humane as a consequence of medication?’

From my original post:

  • ‘a number of science fiction utopias and dystopias are built on the premise of a pharmacologically or neurologically tamed population’

  • ‘In Arthur C Clarke’s 2061 and 3001 the massive advances of humanity are achieved only as a result of the enforced stigmatization of violence and anti-social behaviour’

  • ‘In Clarke’s future world people with demonstrable criminal tendencies (not acts), are subjected to neurological operations which render them harmless’

  • ‘vegetarianism is enforced on the population’

  • ‘If this technology is available, are we morally or ethically obliged to apply it?’

  • 'If this technology is available, are people morally or ethically obliged to submit to it?

  • ‘Can any rational arguments be raised against the enforced use of this technology, given the greater good which it would serve?’

Jaboney how about the idea of using aggression and violence inhibiting drugs on the population so no one actually feels like joining the armed forces in the first place? And that’s an image from ‘The Clockwork Orange’ isn’t it? A related subject.

6

It is Clockwork Orange. And if you could drug an opposing power’s population, over a period of five years or so, that be effective. Unless you were an occupation force and wanted to suppress a rebellion.

There’s a lot of snake oil being peddled in the form of cognitive enhancers, from ginko to ritalin. Actually, I expect that it will soon be possible to induce specific brain states for short periods of time, which will have some interesting recreational effects… but various drugs and practices have made that more or less possible for thousands of years. Convincing people of the legitimacy of their insights/ performances under altered conditions may be as significant a hurdle as producing the technical fixes themselves.

7

An astute government could make good use of this skepticism, whilst gradually implementing a pharmacological regime covertly.

8

It may be cheaper just to educate with a view towards desired thought processes.

9

Because the technology in question is the drugs.[/quote]

Oh. I don’t believe drugs should be classified as technology. That word is rapidly evolving (“technology company” is coming to mean electronics, notwithstanding all the varieties of non-electronic technologies), but plants, herbs and pharmaceuticals, clearly seem to be outside the definition. But, never mind, that’s beside the point.

Sure. Haven’t you ever heard someone say, “If I don’t get a drink/cup of coffee/cigarette/bong load soon I’m going to kill someone”?

A drug that helps the user refrain from committing murder – if that’s not morality enhancing I don’t know what is.

Ok, I’m being silly, but I still don’t quite get it. I thought millions of people are prescribed drugs for their bipolar and other real or imagined disorders that assist them to act more appropriately, including with respect to morality.

Duh. Are we still engaging in such absurd academic debates? Haven’t we all graduated from college and become members of the real world? Drugs or no drugs, who gives a damn, if the world and the people living in it were kinder and more humane – fewer rapes, robberies, assaults, battery, child molestations, fraud, embezzlement, war, terrorism, etc – the world would clearly be a better place.

But, as I said, I acknowledge that cramming morality enhancing drugs forcefully down others’ throats, as opposed to them willingly taking them to better themselves, is another matter, with serious moral issues (although that’s basically what chemical castration of rapists is, and I expect that’s overwhelmingly popular.)

10

These drugs have nothing to do with morality, and they do not enhance the capacity of the individual to feel moral sentiments. They enhance the capacity for normative cognitive behaviours by inhibiting the effects of cognitive disorders. You will note that the psychiatrist in the original article notes that they are analogous to the pharmacology he is discussing, but they are not the same.

Ok, now we’re addressing the questions raised by the issue. Now if the world would clearly be a better place for the absence of these perceived evils, then why not do what it takes to reach that state? What’s wrong with cramming morality enhancing drugs forcefully down others’ throats? Clearly all moral minded and socially conscious citizens will have no problem taking them voluntarily, and those who resist are the very people we’re attempting to treat, the rapists, robbers, fraudsters, etc?

11

Interestingly, on another forum where this is being discussed (a four page 49 post discussion), there’s a tremendous resistance to this kind of technology, on the grounds that it detracts from free will and on the grounds that a society in which moral behaviour is uniform would actually be harmful and even dangerous to the human psyche.

For all the objections people raise to the ‘problem of evil’, I have found no utopia which anyone is willing to exchange their current life for.

12

free will? does that even exist, or do we just have an illusion of free will. we certainly should guard the ability to make our own decisions, for that is a part of what most people regard as their moral right and inheritance and indeed their humanity, but whether that is truly free will is debatable.

i think we’ve been there before.

and if you pull a really long bow, education is simply a form of chemical control: localised application of small doses of neuroactive chemicals that are applied in a context- and content-specific pattern, and which eventually results in a physical reorganisation of the neurons that do the thinking stuff for us.

as to whether it is ethical to use direct chemical means to alter action and response in a set of individuals, or even one, i think the answer is no.

13

That’s close enough to ‘free will’ for me.

Yes, I mentioned this in the other discussion on the other forum.

Speaking from the point of view of someone who grew up with a father suffering from bi polar disorder, I’m personally very glad that chemicals were available to alter his action and response. I can think of a number of friends whose lives would be almost intolerable without medication of this kind, for which they are very grateful.

14

Just like some psychologists argue that there’s a hedonic treadmill (that is, as people’s lives materially improve, subjectively they are not better off, as people adapt to their continually improving lives), perhaps there’s a moral treadmill. Maybe people in this moralpharmalogically-altered world would view double parking and littering with the same sort of horror we view murder and rape and just like us would always view the world as going to hell in a handbasket.

I’m sure you’re a lot more familiar with the philosophy/theology than I, but I’m pretty sure there have been dozens of thinkers who have argued that free will is a necessary condition for morality, that a good deed is only moral when it can be chosen over an evil deed.

15

If that’s the case, then there’s not much point in trying to improve the world.

Yes, I agree with this position.

16

OK, let’s clarify that a bit: is it moral to forcibly apply drugs of some kind to modify the behaviour of a person whose behaviour is demonstrably normal, i would say no.

if their behaviour is abnormal, then i would say it depends on the circumstances. Bipolar disorder, certain forms of schizophrenia, etc: yes, especially if their family agrees, and even if they don’t. that is after all, a key plank of modern psychiatry, even if Tom Cruise doesn’t approve.

children with affective and attentional disorders: well, it’s a topic of huge concern in america, and now across the rest of the world as they follow america’s example. i don’t believe that most patients who receive ritalin, amphetamine and other ADD drugs actually benefit from them in ways that cannot be achieved by better parenting and schooling techniques. for some, yes, but for most, no. it is an easy way out for many parents to say that they’re doing something, but it’s used too much and too readily

other forms of mental illness, or to use for sedating patients in mental institutions: far less morally available. sedation with major tranquilisers is very common, especially in less public institutions where they can get away with it: much cheaper than staff.

prisoners in jail: no, but i can see that used in science fiction stories.

chemical castration of sex offenders, habitual rapists, paedophiles: being trialled in some countries, and probably effective.

so, that leaves a whole slew of less and less moral avenues open.

but where is the line to be drawn? like any moral question, there are places where it is acceptable, and places where it is not, and a whole grey area that has proponents on both sides of the argument. I would defintely say that any mandatory state wide use of chemicals on an entire populace would be flat-out immoral, even if it made for supposedly ‘better’ people.

i choose my own drugs, when and as i see fit to use them thank you, and until i am incapable of making valid decisions in that area, i’ll ask you to let me keep that right.

the problem arises, as it does in any situation where others think they know better, when the goal posts move slowly and what was once acceptable is now verboten. and as always, science fiction has been a powerful discussion tool in this already. just see the movies Minority Report or GATACCA