Article content continued

Oxford University philosophers Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson have argued that humans now have “the means of wiping out life on earth” and that moral bioenhancement (or “MB”) may be our only hope for averting wide-scale terrorism, climate change and all the other rot in the world. Writing in the journal Neuroethics, they say the capacity for sympathy, in particular, “appears to be biologically based,” and that women tend to be more sympathetic than men, suggesting “that MB could consist in making men in general more like women in general,” at least with regards to sympathy.

They and others argue that, because the moral character of many people is less than ideal, what’s not to love about this new medical approach?

Critics such as John Harris, author of How to be Good, say using chemicals to make humans “better” animals could undermine our “moral freedom.”

Artificially enhancing people to always “be good” would rob them of their free will to make — and learn from — mistakes, they argue.

Then there are the questions of what exactly does it mean to be moral, and who gets to decide?

For now, “the reality is that there is not much out there that allows us to do these sorts of things,” said Queen’s University bioethicist Udo Schuklenk. “Look at the miserable failure that is modern psychiatry. We just don’t really understand how the brain works,” he added.

“But it’s also true they’re making progress in leaps and bounds, and I have personally no doubt that these kinds of drugs will eventually exist,” Schuklenk added