1. Sparrow and Non-Universal Moral
Bioenhancement
Richard Gibson, Kings College London
RobertSparrow’s“EgalitarianismandMoral Bioenhancement” paper(2014) presentsuswiththe
argumentthat moral bioenhancementwouldconstitute athreattothe philosophical principle of
Egalitarianismbyforcingthe state intoadvocatingaformof ‘moral perfectionism’ andpotentially
ledto the inequalitiesof rightsbetweenthe enhancedandunenhanced.He doesthisbypresenting
fourseparate argumentsagainstmoral bioenhancement.The firstof these arguments, accordingto
Sparrowthe mostimportantandthe one thiscommentarywill focuson,stipulatesthatthe onlyway
to achieve the beneficialresultsprescribedbyadvocatesof moral bioenhancementwouldrequire
universal application of the practice.Sparrow goesontosay that the onlywaythis couldhappenis
for the state to intervene andmake itcompulsory,andasa resultsubscribe itself toaform of moral
perfectionism, aprinciplethatisnormallyconsideredanti-egalitarian. The purpose of the
commentary isto argue that thisfirstpremise inthisline of reasoning iswrongandas a
consequence its followingpremisesandconclusionare invalid.
Sparrow’sargumentrestson two assumptions.The firstis “thatinorderfor moral bioenhancement
to workas advertiseditwouldneedtobe appliedsocietywide” (Sparrow,2013,p21). The secondis
that if a moral bioenhancementprogramme wasimplementedonanythinglessthanauniversal level
the negative effectsof climate change andthe dangerof terrorists (aswell asother‘ultimate harms’

2. as describedbyPerssonandSavulescu)wouldnotbe negatedandwouldpose the same levelof
threatto global stability andsafety thattheywouldinapre-morallybioenhancedworld. Asa
consequence,accordingtoSparrow, if we wishtoavoidthese formsof global disasterwe would
needtoapplymoral bioenhancementonauniversal scale. Itisfromhere that Sparrow beginsto
identifyethical issueswith compulsory moral bioenhancement andargue againstits
implementation.
As Sparrow’sconcernsaboutthe anti-egalitarianresultsof moral bioenhancementare validonlyin
regardsto a universal applicationof moral bioenhancement,mysolutionistoapplyitona non-
universal scale.One of the consequencesof thisisthat,as longas availability of moral
bioenhancementwasmade universal andnotonan unfairdiscriminatorybasis,the state wouldnot
necessarilyhave tobe involvedinanenforcement ordistribution capacity.If the possibilityof
undergoingmoral bioenhancement wasleftuptoindividualstodecide about,thanthe state would
not be involvedinaformof ‘moral perfectionism’ and consequentially egalitarianismwouldnotbe
threatenedinthe waythatSparrow describesinhisarticle.
If moral bioenhancementisnot implementedonauniversal scale asSparrow argues,thentwo
optionsare leftavailable:one, notimplementmoral bioenhancementatall;two,to optfor a non-
universal moral bioenhancementprogram.The firstof these alternativestocompulsorymoral
bioenhancementispreferredbySparrow.Howeverif aresultof notimplementingmoral
bioenhancementis‘ultimateharm’,whichSparrow doesnotargue against,Iwouldargue that non-
universal moral bioenhancementisamore appealingoption.Evenif there isa potential dangerto
the practice as Sparrow believes,these dangersare merelypossible whereasthe dangerof ‘ultimate
harm’ iscertain.Givenanoptionbetweenthe twoIwould believeit’sbettertotake the riskto gain
the beneficialresultsof moral bioenhancementratherthanreside ourselvestodestructionvia
climate change or terrorism.

3. Howeverthe conceptof non-universal moral bioenhancementdoesraise certaindifficulties.A key
one of these,andthe one that Sparrowusesas hisjustificationof non-universal moral
bioenhancementinhisarticle,isthe potential ineffectivenessof enhancingonlythoseindividuals
that come forwardand volunteer.Ibelieve that the beneficialeffectsof moral bioenhancementas
envisagedbyitsproponents canbe achievedthroughthismethodandit isthispointI will now
argue.
Sparrowarguesthat if moral bioenhancementisimplementedonanythinglessthanauniversal scale
those people whohave decidednottoenhance themselveswill ‘free-ride’onthe benefitsafforded
to the enhanced andthat we shouldavoidthisscenariotomaintainasense of justice.Thisview
presupposesthe ideathatwe do notalreadylive inasituationsimilartothiswhichisincorrect,an
example of thisisrecycling.Itisthe situationthatfewerpeople inthe UKrecycle thanthose who
don’t.Howeverthisfigure doesnotnegate the factthatthe benefitsof recyclingdocontribute to
the preventionof climate change despitethose individuals thatrecycle beinginthe minority.Itisa
similarcase withmoral bioenhancement asVojinRakić(2014, p38) notes, “the possibilitythatmost
people mightnotwishtoundergomoral bioenhancement doesnotmeanthatthose whodo
undergoitwill notplayan importantrole in humanityavoidingultimateharm”.
In elaborationonthispointIwouldargue thatthe ideaof the unenhanced ‘free-riding’ onthe
enhanced isnotan accurate descriptionof the relationshipbetweenthe bioenhancedandnon-
enhanced.Sparrow’sarticle suggestsadualitybetweenthe morallybioenhancedandnon-enhanced
whichI wouldargue isfalse.Whilstthe biological aspectof the enhancementwouldbe restrictedto
the individual whotookthe enhancement,Iwouldargue thattheirincreasedmorality from
bioenhancement wouldhave adominoeffect,increasingthe moral viewsof those aroundthem. For
example if aparentunderwentmoral bioenhancement,Iwouldargue thatthe resultingincrease in
moral outlook wouldhave the potentialitytobe passedontotheirchildren throughamore thorough
contemporarymoral education.Thiswouldincrease thatchild’s moral considerationswhichthey

4. wouldthentake onwiththem intotheiradultlife andaffectthe decisionstheymake. If acertain
numberof people make the choice toundergomoral bioenhancement,Ibelievethatthe benefits
wouldpermeate all throughsocietyuntil itreachedasaturationpoint atwhichthe minority which
have beenmorallybioenhancedhave hada bigenoughimpacton the widersocietal moralityto
change the global course of eventsandavoid ‘ultimateharms’.Whilstthischange would
undoubtedlycome ataslower andmore gradual rate than if moral bioenhancementwas
implementeduniversally,Ibelieve thatitwouldstill come aboutandthe benefitswouldbe richeras
theywouldhave beengainedwithoutthe negative associationswith state interventionor‘moral
perfectionism’.
Conclusion
Non-universal moral bioenhancementcertainlycontainsissues,howeverIwouldsuggestthatthese
issues,andthe conceptas a whole,are preferabletothe alternativesof universal moral
bioenhancementornomoral bioenhancementassuggestedbySparrow.Inhisarticle Sparrow
presentsapersuasive andwell thoughtoutcritique of compulsorymoral bioenhancementandthe
negative consequencesthatitwouldhave.However,if we were totake Sparrow’sadvice andnot
implementmoral bioenhancementonanysort of level we wouldnotreduce the dangerof ‘ultimate
harm’.I argue that the correct course of action isthe onlyone lefttous out of the three options;to
implementanon-universal programmeof moral bioenhancement.
References
Persson,I.,andJ. Savulescu.2013. Should moralbioenhancementbecompulsory? Reply to Vojin
Rakic. [pdf] Journal of Medical Ethics.Available at:
<http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/21/medethics-2013-101423.full.pdf+html>[Accessed
on 06/03/2015].
Rakić,V. 2014. Voluntary MoralBioenhancementIsa Solution to Sparrow’sConcerns.[pdf] The
AmericanJournal of Bioethics.Availableat:
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15265161.2014.889249> [Accessedon
07/03/2015].
Sparrow,R. 2014. EgalitarianismandMoral Bioenhancement. American Journalof Bioethics 14(4):
20-28.