Princeton ethicist Peter Singer wonders whether the time is approaching when it may be possible to solve at least some of our moral problems by popping a pill.
Writing in the Opinionater blog at The New York Times, Dr. Singer asks, “If continuing brain research does in fact show biochemical differences between the brains of those who help others and the brains of those who do not, could this lead to a ‘morality pill’ — a drug that makes us more likely to help?”
Previous generations turned to the frontal lobotomy to control anti-social behavior – the premise behind the Jack Nicholson film, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, of some years back. But if it is possible to identify differences in the brains of those who act helpfully, let us say, and those who do not, then might we not prescribe for the latter some “brain supplement” that will make his brain function more like the “moral” person?
Dr. Singer insists, “Given the many other studies linking biochemical conditions to mood and behavior, and the proliferation of drugs to modify them that have followed, the idea is not far-fetched.” He is doubtless correct. But he wonders whether or not people would “choose to take” such a pill were it available. But what if they had no choice? What if a court or other government agency required it, in order to help miscreants and ne’er-do-wells make a more positive contribution to society?
Dr. Singer rightly understands that such a possibility calls into question the role of human free will. But he is not troubled by this, because he believes that whether or not such a pill is available or prescribed or used, it will only serve to bring our brains more into line with societally-accepted notions of goodness and, hence, of freedom from bad choices – “free” will. He concludes, “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.”
The problem is with that last word – “better.” “Better” on whose terms? Who would decide the criteria of ethical acceptability by which a “normal” brain – and, hence, “free will” – would be defined? And what criteria would be employed to make such determinations?
We’re not so far away from having to deal with these questions, and given the increasing antipathy of secular science – in particular, neuroscience – toward all things religious, together with the increasing involvement of government in matters of health care and medicine, this is a question Christians working in the arenas of ethics and science should be addressing right now.
Or before we know it, we could all be living in a potential cuckoo’s nest, with somebody else deciding what “free will” and “ethics” mean in our case.
