Baccarini and Malatesti (2017) defend the idea that we must use coercively biomedical means to enhance the morality of a specific group of individuals: psychopaths, diagnosed through the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) standards (Hare, 2003). Their argument is theoretical, thus it goes independently from the actual effectiveness of existent treatments, and it is based on a logical reasoning. Moral bioenhancement (MB) means include psychotropic drugs, brain stimulations, neurosurgeries, genetic editing, etc. -/- In short, the authors apply Gerald Gaus' account of open (...) justification (Gaus, 1996, 2011), according to which “a prescription addressed to an agent is a reasoning that includes premises that consider the system of reasons (such as beliefs, preferences, etc.) of that agent” (Baccarini and Malatesti, 2017, p. 1). In their view, coercive MB of psychopaths is morally sound and deducible by reasons within the psychopath's cognitive-affective system—even if the psychopath needs not to be able to consciously or sincerely endorse them. We believe that this argument is flawed. In sum, we argue that the psychopath's cognitive-affective system would consistently justify reasons against mandatory MB to herself, even if she wishes differently for others, and that the prescription cannot be extended. (shrink)

The year 2015 has been a decisive year for the future of mitochondrial replacement therapy – at least in the Western world. Currently, the UK and the US governments are undergoing a process of ethical and scientific evaluation of the technique to decide whether to allow its implementation or not. MRT requires the fusion of the DNA of three parents into an embryo – and this creates a number of worries as to what this scientific innovation will lead to. These (...) worries might be well placed and worthy of consideration, but not on the grounds presented by some opponents. In this paper, we will analyse a recent European Union petition that urged the UK government to refrain from legalising MRT, stressing that other techniques, such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, already have a more direct eugenic potential than MRT. Although the UK Parliament recently voted in favour of MRT, an analysis of the EU petition can nonetheless still contribute to understanding some of the key aspects of the debate. Our conclusion is that what seems to be really at stake, instead, is whether or not we are willing to reconceptualise our notion of parenthood as something not necessarily binominal and genetically related. (shrink)

A prominent objection to non-cognitive moral bio-enhancements is that they would compromise the recipient’s ‘freedom to fall’. I begin by discussing some ambiguities in this objection, before outlining an Aristotelian reading of it. I suggest that this reading may help to forestall Persson and Savulescu’s ‘God-Machine’ criticism; however, I suggest that the objection still faces the problem of explaining why the value of moral conformity is insufficient to outweigh the value of the freedom to fall itself. I also question whether (...) the objection is compatible with Neil Levy’s parity principle. Accordingly, I go on to consider an alternative relational freedom-based objection to NCMBEs that aims to explain the fundamental moral importance of the freedom that NCMBEs would violate. I argue that although this strategy might allow the critic of NCMBEs to bypass a powerful criticism of Harris’ objection, it also weakens the freedom-based objection’s compatibility with the parity principle. (shrink)