M. D. Garasic
Research Proposal
Against Emotional Enhancement
In recent years, supporters of Human Enhancement (HE) have moved the discussion on cognitive and moral
enhancers to the realm of emotions, or more specifically to love.1 Notably, in current medical and policy
discussions, as well as bioethical debates on HE and genetic engineering, the consideration that we give to
the intrinsic value of emotions plays a very important role in defining what is morally permissible to do with
such biotechnologies, and the topic has increasingly featured in bioethics literature in recent years.
However, I take issue specifically with positions in favor of the use of anti-love drugs or love enhancers
(depending on the specific case) as diminishing human flourishing at an individual level, as well as
threatening liberal values at the sociopolitical level. While I recognize the therapeutic use that emotional
modulation can have in treating psychiatric disorders and neurodegenerative diseases, my contention is
that we should not implement such biotechnologies as emotional enhancers: not only we would be putting
at risk some intrinsic richness in our way of experiencing life, but we would also drastically reduce the
spectrum of actual possibilities for future individuals. The project will investigate the current debate
regarding Emotional Enhancement (EE) and achieve a more clear definition of what the moral limits are
with regard to the implementation of chemical (drugs) and technological (i.e. Transcranial Brain
Stimulation) enhancers in cases of emotional instability. In contrast with recent proposal that have pictured
optimistic scenario on the issue, the approach of my project will also give relevance to the social and
political impact of such innovation. The way of tackling the issue will be initially divided into two distinct
and yet complementary parts, based on a critique of two important works recently published2 and to which
my work aims at giving a substantive response. First, I will focus on cases of emotional repression, or is it
has been defined already in literature “anti-love biotechnology”. Expanding on my previous work3 I will aim
at showing the sociopolitical threats represented by the implementation of such emotional blockers. The
already existing disparity among different socioeconomic groups might be exacerbated by the introduction
of yet another discriminatory variable between “haves” and “have nots”. Second, I will criticize scenarios of
“re-directing” our love -or reshape our sexuality- through the use of love enhancers from a biopolitical
stand. If we accept -as the authors of the articles suggest- that the prioritization of some values over others
may not be justifiable, it would appear that the striving of modern society to conquer new levels of medical
progress should also be questioned in some cases. We could, in other words, affirm that the risk of
1
Savulescu, J. and Sandberg, A., 2008, “Neuroenhancement of love and marriage: the chemicals between us”, Neuroethics, 1, p.3144; Wudarczyk, O. A., Earp, B. D., Guastella, A., and Savulescu, J., 2013, “Could intranasal oxytocin be used to enhance
relationships? Research imperatives, clinical policy, and ethical considerations”, Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 25(5), p.475-484.
2 Earp, B., Wudarczyk, O., Sandberg, A. and Savulescu, J., 2013, “If I could just stop loving you: Anti-love biotechnology and the
ethics of a chemical breakup”, American Journal of Bioethics, 13(11), p.3-17; Earp, B., Sandberg, A. and Savulescu, J., “Brave New
Love: The threat of high-tech ‘conversion’ therapy and the bio-oppression of sexual minorities”, AJOB Neuroscience, (In press).
3 Garasic, M. D., 2013, “Anti-love Biotechnology: Was it Not Better to Have Loved and Lost Than Never to Have Loved at All?”,
American Journal of Bioethics, Vol.13(11), p.22-23.
1
M. D. Garasic
Research Proposal
reduction of freedom and happiness of a certain group of citizens (i.e. homosexuals) deserves more
attention than the potential benefits of helping people with a given medical condition (i.e. Anhedonia).
Third, I will analyze the concept of “self-creation” as an absolute value in both contexts. The possibility to
“redirect” one’s sexuality towards “high order values” that would exclude a sexual orientation, would
probably create more doubts in a different scenario: would it be morally acceptable to allow a racist to
select the exclusive ethnic group to which she will feel attracted by? A very recent case of euthanasia
resulting from the incapability to cope with the changes occurred during a sex-change operation,4 has
shown how limited our capability to foresee what “freedom to self-create” entails, and how difficult it is to
fully understand how we want to (and can) be identified by society. Focusing only on biochemical ways to
change what we do not like about ourselves might do more harm than good. Finally, I will connect the
above points into a larger political critique of the HE and EE project, as an ideology unable to escape its
perfectionist dimension of liberalism; an approach deeply in contrast with the preservation of the liberties
of the individual often invoked by sustainers of HE as the moving principle behind their enterprise.
4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24373107 [accessed on 07 February 2014]
2