Ethical issues in moral and social enhancement

1.3.2. Enhancement and benefit 
Does the idea of enhancement as improvement include a normative statement about 
what is morally good? Not necessarily, as enhancement in the sense of a beneficial 
change in the sphere of morality (s. 1.2.3.) includes only the claim that an 
intervention is beneficial to the agent. When talking about moral enhancement it 
may be worth asking whether it is supposed to be beneficial for the person’s moral 
character or moral behaviour or for their welfare more generally. The ambiguity of 
the phrase ‘moral enhancement’ can be explained in part by the presence of those 
two ways in which an intervention can be beneficial—beneficial to the ‘moral 
character or behaviour’ of the person, or prudentially beneficial. 
A similar question may arise in relation to cognitive enhancement—we may be 
wondering whether an intervention is beneficial for a person’s intellectual capacity 
or in the person’s interest more generally speaking. There may be cases where 
cognitive enhancement is in a person’s narrowly construed interests, those related 
to their cognitive abilities and knowledge, but not necessarily in a more widely 
construed interest. Let us consider two scenarios involving cognitive enhancement. 
There may be cases where an improvement in certain cognitive abilities may not be 
in the overall interest of a person, for example if there are substantial side-effects 
that affect their physical or mental wellbeing.
Take the example of Esperanza, a girl with borderline learning difficulties. After 
taking a new smart pill, Esperanza becomes much better at mathematics and 

---

24 
physics, but the pill also happens to act directly on her neural circuitry governing 
mood and emotion—causing Esperanza to feel depressed most of the time.
Contrast this with the case of Ernesto, who has a similar level of learning difficulty 
but does not experience any obvious side-effects. However, because he is now able 
to learn so much more effectively, he becomes lonely—his old friends will not play 
with him because now ‘he is too smart’. Despite the efforts of teachers and parents 
to improve the situation, Ernesto becomes increasingly isolated. In Ernesto’s case, 
although there are no straightforward adverse effects, an improvement in an aspect 
of cognitive function causes a behavioural change that brings about a net loss in 
wellbeing. 
Consider another example, somewhat akin to the theme of Keyes’ (1966) short 
story 
Flowers for Algernon
. Esther has severe learning difficulties. She does not 
realise that she lacks certain capacities. She is a cheerful person and a pleasure to be 
around, and she enjoys life. She does not display challenging behaviour and so does 
not require any medication. A new drug comes onto the market that has been shown 
to improve cognitive function in people with less severe mental disability. Esther’s 
mother decides to try this drug, and there is a marked improvement in Esther’s 
cognitive abilities. Unfortunately, the improvement is not significant enough to 
enable her to be more independent: although she understands her environment 
better, there is no great change in her wellbeing. However, for the first time, she 
starts to notice the jokes that people make at her expense, and she is acutely aware 
of her limitations. Although, as Mill (1859) famously wrote, it may be ‘better to be 
Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied,’ in some cases the cost of knowledge or 
reflective awareness may be too high. 
As the example of Esther demonstrates, there may be some cases where 
intervention in cognitive capacities is beneficial in the narrow sense, but not in the 
wide sense. In this situation we could say that intervention is an enhancement in the 
narrow sense, but not an enhancement all-things-considered. The cases of 
Esperanza and Ernesto demonstrate the importance of predicting and estimating 
costs and benefits. Despite the fact that cognitive enhancement 
may 
have 
significantly negative effects on someone’s life, like those experienced by 

---

25 
Esperanza and Ernesto, it can be argued that enhancement, in such cases (cognitive 
enhancement narrowly understood), usually brings more benefits than harms (in the 
wide sense) and is therefore worth pursuing. Education is important in our societies; 
high academic performance often translates into better career prospects and brings a 
number of other benefits. Thus, our experience with a number of instances of 
enhancement may lead us to say that cognitive enhancement (narrowly understood) 
is most likely to be in a person’s interest.
Analogically, the multiple ways of assessing whether an intervention in the moral 
sphere is an enhancement mean that interventions in the moral sphere that are 
attempting to improve certain function or generally improve moral agency are 
subject to further ethical assessment.