This is an obvious cross-reference for this group—indeed, many of you likely already read it. Peter Singer and Agata Sagan have an column in NYTimes' "The Stone" today called "Are We Ready for a Morality Pill?" They present the conundrum of the how to factor in our growing understanding of the effect of brain chemistry not just on our mood and temperment, but also our inclination toward morally good actions. Essentially, there's growing evidence that there are significant brain-chemical correlations not only for rather clear psychological pathologies like schizophrenia, major depression, and extreme anti-social behaviors, but also more subtle distinctions like our sensitivity for morally good behavior and our predisposition for altruistic or good-samartian-type acts. (We talk about some of this in our neurobiology episode with Pat Churchland.) Singer and Sagan conclude with:
But if our brain’s chemistry does affect our moral behavior, the question of whether that balance is set in a natural way or by medical intervention will make no difference in how freely we act. If there are already biochemical differences between us that can be used to predict how ethically we will act, then either such differences are compatible with free will, or they are evidence that at least as far as some of our ethical actions are concerned, none of us have ever had free will anyway. In any case, whether or not we have free will, we may soon face new choices about the ways in which we are willing to influence behavior for the better.
So, part of what we face here is that the variety in our behaviors and dispositions has some significant portion that is like the variation in our heights or the amount of our body hair. Such variations are just part of the myriad of distinctions between one human and another. Put that way, we're faced with the question of what culpability for our actions really means—we certainly don't expect to hold people guilty for their extreme height or their hair loss (though, pertinently, both have social effects).
I'm inclined to put a slightly different spin on it, however. Our chemistry, like the rest of our bodies, mark limitations, but generally a range rather than a determined value or relation—a boundary that constrains without determination. Sometimes, that boundary is very tight. For instance, as a group we humans can tolerate fairly little variation in the amount of potassium in our blood without dying. In other cases the boundary is pretty loose. We flourish is nearly all the climates on the earth. The question we have socially is how much variation in behavior do we tolerate (even encourage) and what do we do about it before generating technological solutions to the failures of our physiology. (Shelter and clothing anyone?) Faced with the possibility of modifying even more behaviors through advancing knowledge of how chemistry affects moral behavior, we must confront the need to make explicit judgements about letting unapproved, even bad things, happen, just as much as we concern ourselves with encouraging good things to happen and hamper bad ones.
-Dylan
http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2011/11/alva-noe-addiction-is-not-disease-of.html
I think it’s pretty obvious without further research that we behave badly because of a combination of various inherent traits and environmental circumstances. What interests me is the definition of ‘badly’ – there’s a line going from impossibly saintly through pain in the neck annoying to evil psycho – where do we want to intervene, exactly, and if we took away ‘badness’ would we also remove sometimes useful and interesting qualities such as aggression or humour?
in keeping with earlier themes of control societies it is worth noting that some states, like NY, are in the process of screening whole grades of school children for “mental” health problems which largely fall under the dubious new category of behavioral health and which are part of the growing domain of psychiatry. Thomas Szaz was badly wrong about there being no such thing as psychiatric illnesses but he may be prophetic about the growing threat to our civil rights coming out of a marriage of psychiatry and our public institutions especially those with strong relations (as schools have via probation and family courts) to the criminal justice system, not to mention Big Pharma and their puppets in Washington.
Agreed, it makes a big difference here whether the behaviour-modifying substance is something that I choose to take all by myself (nothing new/controversial in that case, it’s just like a couple of beers or a strong cup of coffee), as opposed to a state intervention that obliges whole sets of people to have their behaviour modified so that they’re easier for the state to manage.
–R.
I don’t think it’s so much our prerogative in philosophy to yes/no this phenomenon so much as to observe its inevitable taking place and detail its failings. As far as I can tell, antipsychotics are already full-blown “morality” pills, and they fall just as far short as any pill ever will, thank God.
I’m probably firing off this comment more quickly than I should, but this made me think of the whole idea of privation. If it were the case that a persons brain chemistry predisposed them to ‘immoral’ or morally dubious behavior then that would seem to be more of a limit on their range of choices than a person with a ‘healthy’ brain. The ‘healthy’ brain has more capability for nuance in any given situation and increased freedom, as it were. Much like the example you give of height. I am a short fellow, so my freedom is limited by my height in terms of what shelf space is available to use in my kitchen, and as a result I purchased a step stool (of course, a step stool is brought in to solve a much simpler problem than the neurological one described in the OP, and more ethical issues are raised because of the complications). Sorry if that was too rambling.
The idea of rehabilitation with the intent of “fixing” a “morally bad” person is appealing. If we can cure someone without compromising the morality of our society we should. The problem here is that although a morality pill might cure a deviant, society’s morality becomes compromised. Does society have the right to take away psychological autonomy?
IMO it’s worth keeping a clear distinction between “morally bad” behaviour and criminality. The sanctions available in each case are quite different, I think.
–R.
Following the article.. We start out with people walking past a child hit by a car. We end up at “A Clockwork Orange”. So that’s a range from what feels wrong to criminal behavior. The article doesn’t make a very clear distinction as to exactly who would be taking this pill. So yes there is a distinction between criminal behavior and what’s morally bad. Hence my questioning if society should be medicating anyone.
there are certainly questions about what the basis is for making such a distinction (moral vs criminal) and the coercive powers of the state, but the more basic philosophical question seems to be more one of what our ability to manipulate brain chemistry/functions means to our sense of being a responsible (and or even cohesive) agent.
takes the discussion of extended cognition/minds into interesting realms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Clark
Part of what is at stake here is the very notion of culpability, which is essential of both criminal and moral distinctions. It also strikes at our notions of free will, identity, self-determination, etc. All of these conceptions have bearing on how we understand ourselves and our community, hence they have philosophical implications for both us as individuals and as interacting members of society.
We’re already up a tree a bit in that we associate our being with our physicality. Thus, if we find out that we’re physically pre-disposed toward on thing or another, we tend to say that’s what we “are”. Additionally, we are also inclined to not hold people responsible for what they “are,” only what they can choose to be. The insanity defense rests on this notion — if you were insane at the time of your crime, your culpability for its consequences is different.
A similar issue is at play with children, particularly recently in the question of trying teenagers as adults for serious crimes. Some argue that the very seriousness of the crime (generally murder) warrants increasing the severity of the potential punishment — if you play like and adult, you get treated like an adult. Others argue that the minds of teenagers are simply different that the minds of full-grown adults (25+), that there are demonstrable chemical differences, that ought to make them less culpable for very bad decisions/actions.
In either case, we’re asking the question as a community what we should do about an individual based upon how we understand what an individual is.
The issue of (over)medication of children is also a huge deal right now in the educational world. I’ve had parents tell me that they ‘need to have their child diagnosed’, with ADHD, ADD, ODD, OCD, even ASD (autism spectrum disorder or asperger’s), pick your acronym, so that their doctor can write a prescription for them, because the teacher told them that is what they need to do. I’ve had teachers ask me to diagnose a student that may be a differently-abled learner.
ritalin, adder all, stratterra, lexapro, etc. take you pick of drug du jour. so many kids take legal drugs already. this is not even to go into the drug swapping that goes on as kids get into the upper grades, for the high, help with the test, etc.
Right now, the discussion occurring about changing the parameters of diagnostic criteria for Autism and all related disorders, happening as the DSM-V goes to print within the next year, is so important. School services, instructional, and standardized testing modifications (which correlates to SAT performance, college acceptance, etc.) hang in the balance for thousands of kids, not to mention school budgets (which ultimately will effect teaching positions, related personnel positions, money for consumables in the classroom, technology, the arts, and on and on).
Which all goes back to the ‘differently’ abled/behaved student: If a chid exhibits ‘bad behavior’ (which in and of itself is such a relative term- depending on situation, learning environment, social setting, even teacher personality/tolerance/patience level!) do we give them a pill, or put a little time and effort into modifying and adapting the environment in which the child learns, using positive reinforcement, tangible, social and/extrinsic motivators. Good teachers do this every day.
Bad teachers may prefer their students drugged.
lots of factors there but many teachers are under tremendous pressure to try and somehow make up for deficits in socialization/social-skill-development in children who have not been taught (or are not able to learn) say to be patient, compassionate, or otherwise response-able, deficits for which there are no easy answers from any of the professional adults involved and for which teachers are being judged in their job performances.
very true: many factors involved in the day-to-day life of a teacher k-12, and beyond. from the perspective of a former special ed teacher for many years (now a consultant), I very much agree that teachers are under tremendous pressure, from a multitude of fronts for a plethora of factors.
don’t even get me started on ‘salary for scores’!
maslow’s hierarchy of needs comes into play for so many of our students every single day: if you don’t have food, shelter, security, all correlatives of emotional stability, how can there be a desire to learn, or an ability?