Ethical issues in moral and social enhancement

has become the basis of a social 
convention, loading them with meaning regardless of their 
actual consequences
. They have acquired a symbolic meaning 
expressing disregard or even contempt for the coerced or 
manipulated people. … [S]uch conventions are not exceptionless. 
There is nothing wrong with coercion used to stop one from 
stepping into the road and under a car. Such exceptions only 
reinforce the argument for the conventional and symbolic or 
expressive character of the prohibition against coercion and 
manipulation, at least to the extent that it transcends the severity of 
the actual consequences of these actions. (Raz, 1986, 
p. 378) 
I find the argument from the ‘expressed attitude’ unconvincing. It is no insult to a 
person's status as a moral equal to treat him in ways that presume that his rational 
capacities are not perfect, but subject to error. It does not follow from that attitude 
that they lack, or are deficient in, the capacities that give raise to their equal moral 
status. It is moreover unclear to me why we should be that strongly worried about 
other people’s (or even the state’s) insults – if the issue ends on insults, that is. The 
importance of the God Machine’s interference does not lie in the insulting character 
of it, but rather in the fact that it undermines our independence on a very basic 

---

182 
level. It attacks the inner citadel, the safety of which is a precondition necessary for 
the political freedom of individuals to be meaningful. Thus, the ‘freedom in our 
mind,’ and the ability to trust that the making-up of our mind is truly ours, is 
foundational.
Having sketched out the reasons for the importance of the freedom of thought, the 
‘inner citadel’, one has to ask what exactly is the scope and limit of the protection 
of such freedom (Blitz, 2010), what does that freedom consists of, how does the 
protection or promotion of such freedom conflict with other valuable kinds of 
freedom and what freedom is threatened by. There is insufficient space in the 
present work to develop a satisfactory account that can answer all these questions, 
but such an account would have to reflect on 
the 
ways
in which desires are formed, 
endorsed and put into action — whether as a result of rational reflection on all the 
options available, or as a result of pressure, manipulation, ignorance or 
brainwashing 
(Christman, 1991; Dworkin, 1988).
Such influences have not been created equally – non-coercive measures such as 
structuring options or providing incentives lie on the one side of that spectrum, 
while the influence of the God Machine lies on the other. It not only prevents the 
exercise of – and impairs – the persons’ very capacities that are the centre of 
autonomy (my worry is thus similar to Harris’ 2014a, 2014b), but goes a step 
further. Whatever its exact scope and shape, the God Machine is clearly inimical to 
the safety of the inner citadel. It not only constitutes an influence that clearly comes 
from outside and unbeknownst to the agent, but also denies the agent the certainty 
of independence in the narrow area that is the last bastion of freedom when other 
freedoms might have been taken away. In Harris’ words, ‘… 
the independence … 
[of people] to form their own values and choose their own way of life is vital ...’ 
(2014a, p. 258).