Pushing the Limits of our Brains

Starring Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro, the 2011 film Limitless plays with the concept of a “smart drug” known as NZT-48 which enables one to fully utilize their brain. This results in perfect recall, immense focus, increased productivity, and the ability to instantaneously learn and analyze new information such as languages and advanced mathematics. The film Limitless wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen the brain and its behavior as the subject of film and television. Since the beginning of time, society has continuously dreamed of manipulating the brains landscape to our advantage. Hollywood has produced multiple movies which alter the reality of our brains such as Inception, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Total Recall.

While these movies are set in fictional worlds, they’re not too far off from the truth. Closely related to field of “smart drugs,” neuroscientists, pharmaceuticals, and philosophers are now toying with the idea of moral drugs; a drug that can enhance our morality. A research associate at the Oxford Center for Neuroethics, Brian Earp uses the topic of psychopaths to portray how moral improvements can be a beneficial aspect to our society. Earp argues that with moral adjusters, psychopaths, who normally don’t have the capacity to understand other people’s pain, can feel added empathy and consequently decrease their violent tendencies. This same logic can be applied to those who have trouble controlling their rage and are susceptible to committing violent acts in the heat of the moment. The idea is that moral drugs can counteract their behavior. In fact, the use of moral drugs is not a new concept. As seen with Indigenous Amazon Tribes and the use of the substance Ayahuasca, traditional societies have long used psychotropic substances to help enhance the moral learning of children. And while most people don’t identify alcohol as a modifier of our moral behavior, alcohol can cause individuals to act out of the ordinary and disregard their moral principles. 

The problem with engaging in moral enhancing drugs is the idea that morality is “an intensely personal, human characteristic” and that these drugs wouldn’t just enhance morality, but correspondingly manipulate one’s true self. The counter argument contends that if morality is a good entity, then by virtue, pursuing morality is good. Similar to the ethical aspect of neuroscience that Earp is dealing with, Dr. Joe Vukov debates the pros and cons of memory modifying technology discussed in the research article titled “The Normativity of Memory Modification.” When it comes to the neuroethics debate, Vukov outlines three types of groups: Alarmists, Modifiers, and Treatmentalists. The question at hand is how does modification of our brains-whether morally in the case of Earp or memory-wise in the case of Vukov-affect our identities as individuals?

In the eyes of alarmists, memory modification is rarely, if ever, morally permissible.  This is a result of the belief that our memories are a core set of features definitive of who we are, and that without them, our true selves would be in danger. It is likely that alarmists would have similar views concerning how moral enhancement endangers our true self. What’s more, alarmist see the value in bad memories (i.e. experiencing death and loss) and how they can inspire and make one stronger. One example Vukov uses is the discrimination Martin Luther King, Jr. experienced as a child that most likely lead him to be the great civil rights leader we know today. Similarly, alarmists may think one’s poor moral judgements can influence their future decisions and personality.

In contrast, Modifiers set the bar very low when it comes to ethics: essentially, memory modification is morally permissible as long as it doesn’t harm oneself or others. Likewise, one can argue that moral enhancement is harmless. It is probable that modifiers would take the stance that pursuing moral enhancers is beneficial because moral virtue is an appreciated value in our society. Modifiers also account for the fact that memories are constantly under reevaluation, and that the way one remembers something is influenced by who they are and the person they have become. Therefore, we don’t need to worry about endangering our identity, as memory modification is just another factor that can contribute to who we are. Similarly, our morals are continuously changing as one undergoes new experiences and learns new information.

 The moderate view between the previous two schools of thought would be treatmentalists who make the distinction between treatment and enhancement. To treat is to restore one to their normal level of function, while enhancement takes one beyond their level of function. In the case of Vukov’s evaluation of memory modification, using memory modification is acceptable as long as it returns one to their normal level of function, such as those whose lives have been disrupted by previously traumatizing experiences (i.e. soldiers who return home with post-traumatic stress disorder). The idea is that if memory modification is only used to restore people to normal functioning, we don’t need to worry about endangering our true selves, because we are returning ourselves to our original functioning. At the same time, treatmentalists respect the value of bad memories and the role they play in who we become. Treatmentalists are likely to frown upon moral enhancement among those who already exhibit a satisfactory amount of moral reasoning. However, perhaps they would support Earp’s argument in favor of psychopaths taking moral enhancing drugs in order to decrease their violent tendencies. In the case of psychopaths, moral drugs wouldn’t enhance the individuals, but rather return them to a normal state of moral reasoning.

While these drugs may seem far off in the future, Earp argues that they are just around the corner, give or take a few years. Before introducing future brain modifying pharmaceuticals, we must analyze the ethical, legal, and social impact neurotechnology will have in society. How will neurotechnology affect our free will, moral responsibility, and personal identity?

 References

Goldhill, O. (2016). An Oxford neuroethicist on how drugs can make us more moral. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://qz.com/762593/how-drugs-can-make-us-more-moral/

Liao, S. M., & Sandberg, A. (2008). The Normativity of Memory Modification. Neuroethics,1(2), 85-99. doi:10.1007/s12152-008-9009-5

May, K. T. (2013, August 15). 9 classic movies about memory manipulation, and how they inspired real neuroscience. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://blog.ted.com/8-classic-movies-about-memory-manipulation-and-how-they-inspired-real-neuroscience/

*Image taken from: 
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Limitless_(serie_televisiva).jpg