Saskia E. Verkiel

Moral enhancement can be an attractive proposal, but contrary to cognitive enhancement, it is hard to define what kind of intervention would constitute moral enhancement. In an ongoing debate about the subject, Douglas argued that biomedically decreasing countermoral emotions would do so and would be morally permissible in particular cases. Harris disagreed, and one of his arguments is that failing to address the intellectual aspects of moral decisions—and simply targeting countermoral emotions—would effectively undermine our freedom by reducing our options to act immorally. In a consequent paper, Douglas defended his position. In this paper, I examine Douglas' response to Harris concern about the loss of freedom with biomedical moral enhancement. I argue that Douglas' framework for moral reasoning on which he bases his argument that biomedical intervention is in some cases permissible lacks soundness, and that it apparently undermines morality. Harris insists that morality requires freedom of choice, yet Douglas and Harris have different conceptions of freedom of choice. Douglas' focus on quantity in his defence does not engage with Harris focus on quality of choice. Thus, the kind of biomedical enhancement that Douglas defends is not moral—nor immoral—but amoral enhancement.

In 2008 a young man committed suicide while his webcam was running. 1,500 people apparently watched as the young man lay dying: when people finally made an effort to call the police, it was too late. This closely resembles the case of Kitty Genovese in 1964, where 39 neighbours supposedly watched an attacker assault and did not call until it was too late. This paper examines the role of internet mediation in cases where people may or may not have been good Samaritans and what their responsibilities were. The method is an intuitive one: intuitions on the various potentially morally relevant differences when it comes to responsibility between offline and online situations are examined. The number of onlookers, their physical nearness and their anonymity have no moral relevance when it comes to holding them responsible. Their perceived reality of the situation and ability to act do have an effect on whether we can hold people responsible, but this doesn’t seem to be unique to internet mediation. However the way in which those factors are intrinsically connected to internet mediation does seem to have a diminishing effect on responsibility in online situations