This document summarizes and critiques Robert Sparrow's argument against non-universal moral bioenhancement. Sparrow argues that for moral bioenhancement to be effective it must be applied universally, which would require state intervention and threaten egalitarianism. The author argues that a non-universal approach could still achieve benefits through a "domino effect," as the enhanced influence others, and poses fewer risks than no enhancement. While issues remain, non-universal enhancement is preferable to the alternatives of universal enforcement or no enhancement at all.