Ethical issues in moral and social enhancement

7.6.5. Conclusions 
The non-domination view of freedom that Sparrow (2014) refers to in support of his 
argument cannot sustain the critique of the God Machine where the God Machine is 
seen as the dominating agent. Pettit’s proposal that we extend the idea of freedom 
as non-domination to collective agents does not lend much help, as the God 
Machine is not a collective agent. Pettit’s (1997) theory is ill-suited for the kind of 
critique of the God Machine world that Sparrow (2014) advances. The God 
Machine neither ‘dominates’, nor are the citizens of the God Machine society, as 
Sparrow wrote, ‘its subjects’ (2014, p. 27).
Although Sparrow’s (2014) critique fails because it misconstrues the God Machine 
as an agent and the facts of the ideal world presented by Savulescu and Persson 
(2012a), the considerations presented in this chapter are relevant if we wish to use 
the God Machine scenario as an analogy for the real world. Harris (2014a) rightly 
raises the question about the limits that should be put on state power, even if the 
state power is non-arbitrary, democratic and legitimate at the moment. The power 
can be abused, even the well-crafted laws can be stretched and applied for purposes 
other than justice, the information leaked intentionally or not; the legitimacy of 
even democratic governments is open to discussion, and the transparency of 
governments’ actions has to be constantly checked and re-assessed. Any instrument 
that diminishes such ability unjustifiably impairs the democratic process and 
undermines the checks and balances necessary for the maintenance of the system of 
man-made laws that serve those who create and abide by them. Although many 
readers live in democratic societies and enjoy a considerable amount of political 
freedom within those states, the degree of liberty even inside of those political 
systems tends to fluctuate. Finally, those systems sometimes change rapidly or even 
fall.