Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert

Bioethics 33 (1):112-121 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
CRUCMB
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-06-10
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Moral Enhancement.Douglas, Thomas
Public Health Ethics: Mapping the Terrain.Childress, James F.; Faden, Ruth R.; Gaare, Ruth D.; Gostin, Lawrence O.; Kahn, Jeffrey; Bonnie, Richard J.; Kass, Nancy E.; Mastroianni, Anna C.; Moreno, Jonathan D. & Nieburg, Phillip

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2018-06-05

Total views
97 ( #25,661 of 41,505 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
55 ( #10,732 of 41,505 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.