Should we take the morality pill?

Headline: The moral dilemma
Author: Guy Kahane
Source: The Sunday Times, 10 July 2011

Quote1
Scientists have not only identified some of the brain pathways that shape our ethical decisions, but also the chemical substances that modulate this neural activity. … Of course, no one is developing a “moral pill” that will transform us into saints. But the research is advancing fast, and it is almost certain to suggest new ways to shape our moral intuitions, sentiments, and motivations.

Comment1
This sets out the background for what follows.

Quote2
Should we use our growing scientific understanding of the basis of human morality to try to make people morally better? …

Comment2
This presents the philosophically interesting question.

Quote3
Many will agree … that our ability to distinguish right from wrong is something precious that we should safeguard, not a broken clock that scientists should fix. …

Comment3
This is a premise in an incompletely presented argument (an enthymeme). Here is the complete argument:

Premise1: If (use science to make people morally better) then (we treat morality as a broken clock)
Premise2: Not-(we treat morality as a broken clock)
Conclusion: Hence, Not-(use science to make people morally better)

This is a Modus Tollens, a valid argument form. The only question then is: Are the premises true?

Quote4
Even in the most advanced and affluent societies, a vast concentrated effort is needed to preserve even minimal decency: think of locks, security alarms, police, courts and prisons. …

Comment4
This denies Premise2 in Comment3: We do treat morality as a broken clock – and we do try to fix it. The argument is rebutted. However, it does not follow from this that the conclusion is false. It is only that this conclusion cannot be reached via this argument.

Quote5
Humans are born with the capacity to be moral, but it is a limited capacity which is ill equipped to deal with the ethical complexities of the modern world.

Comment5
This makes a general statement, which I expect will be the premise to an argument. However, no argument is offered to support this general statement. We are left with intuition. I am not prepared to intuitively accept that “humans are born with the capacity to be moral”. I am also not prepared to intuitively accept that the human capacity to be moral is “a limited capacity which is ill equipped to deal with the ethical complexities of the modern world”.

Quote6
For thousands of years, humans have relied on education, persuasion, social institutions and the threat of real (or supernatural) punishment to make people behave decently. We could all be morally better, but it is clear that this traditional approach cannot take us further. It is not as if people would suddenly begin to behave better if we just gave them more facts and statistics, or better arguments.

Comment6
This is a different claim from Quote5. This says we have exhausted all the traditional ways of making people behave decently. This makes no claim on a limited congenital capacity for morality. This is also not yet an argument.

Quote7
So we should not be too quick to dismiss the suggestion that science might help – in the first instance, by helping us design more effective institutions, more inspiring moral education, or more persuasive ethical arguments.

Comment7
This contradicts Quote6, which said “education, persuasion … [and] institutions … cannot take us further”.

Quote8
But science might also offer more direct ways of influencing our brains. …

Comment8
Following from Quote6, if all the traditional means have been exhausted, science offers a new alternative. Should this alternative be taken? This repeats the question presented in Quote2.

Quote9
Governments must not be given the power to control its citizens’ moral code – we know that if they had such power, they would misuse it. …

Comment9
This scientific alternative cannot be presented to the government, because it would abuse the instrument. This is a modus tollens argument. Can the alternative then be presented to the people?

Quote10
It is not so obvious that people would really want to take pills that would make them morally better. It is not clear that people really want to be morally better. …

Comment10
Well, we cannot count on people to voluntarily take the scientific alternative.

Quote11
We do not yet know what is possible. But it is better to begin the ethical discussion too early than too late.

Comment11
The question remains open. But let’s talk about it (even if the traditional method of discussion has been exhausted?)

END