Genetic enhancement that enriches emotional well-being is ethical

Before we begin, let me respond to Con’s excellent opening question: either answer suffices for this debate. That said, I argue for a genetic recalibration of our hedonic treadmill that massively enriches hedonic tone while preserving functional analogues of pain, depression, and guilt, not as we know them today but as gradients of happiness. I imagine a future of genetic enhancements in which the floor of comparative ill-being would be higher than our absolute ceiling of well-being today. As such, we do away with suffering and psychological pain, but preserve our preference architecture, the ability to prefer one thing as better than another. The key is preserving gradients of happiness instead of imposing permanent maximum bliss. Thus, because some things will make you happier than others, value is inherently preserved as a possible ethical category. Introduction"Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence."Aristotle"It is not God's will merely that we should be happy, but that we should make ourselves happy." Immanuel Kant"The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation."Jeremy BenthamHappiness has been fundamental to human existence throughout history. I believe it occupies a unique status among the different possible genetic enhancements: where other enhancements are instrumentally good, enriching emotional well-being is the only enhancement that is intrinsically good. To open the debate, I make two arguments. First, I argue that responsible parents would choose to genetically predispose their children to a happier life. Then, I close with a look at different ethical systems and how genetically enhancing happiness fits as a moral category within them. Responsible Parenting: Genetic Roulette vs. Designer BabiesWhat kind of person, if offered the choice, would deliberately pass on genes for haemophilia, sickle-cell anaemia or muscular dystrophy to their children? The answer to that question is the key to any debate about the ethics of genetic modification.When the requisite biotechnolgoy becomes available, choosing the genetic make-up of your child – as opposed to throwing the genetic dice and hoping they roll the right way – will become the moral responsibility of parenthood. Parents will have the option of using preimplantation diagnosis and germline gene therapy to ensure that potentially harmful genes like the recessive cystic fibrosis allele aren’t passed on to their children. What about genes which contribute to psychological pain and suffering? For example, people who inherit two copies of a “short” version of the chromosome 17 serotonin transporter gene, 5-HTTLPR, have an 80% chance of becoming clinically depressed if they experience three or more negative life-events in five years. By contrast, genetically resilient people who inherit the “long” version have only a 30% chance of developing mental illness in similar circumstances. [1]If offered the choice via preimplantation diagnosis, would you opt for the long serotonin transporter gene variant for your future child? Or would you decline to choose, putting your faith in Mother Nature? I assume that Con will at least grant my case this much: most parents would prefer, on balance, that their children are temperamentally happy rather than miserable.It seems almost obvious, then, that responsible parents would choose to avoid alleles and allelic combinations associated with depression. That is the ethically responsible choice. Ignoring the availability of biotechnologies that can make your child’s life better, and choosing pure sexual reproduction instead, is the moral equivalent of playing Russian roulette. It effectively turns parenting into gambling. That's the answer I offer to the question I began this section with: what kind of person would pass on harmful genes to their child? A gambler. Ethical systems supporting genetic enhancementa. UtilitarianismSee Bentham’s quote above: we are basically talking about Bentham with biotechnology. The moral urgency of genetic enhancements that abolish suffering and enrich emotional well-being follows logically from defining morality as the greatest happiness of the greatest number. b. Deontological ethicsIn contrast to utilitarianism, deontological ethics defines moral action by its adherence to a principle or rule. Kant’s moral constructivism formulated by his categorical imperative is a classic example. The idea is that the means do not justify the ends. Is genetic enhancement inherently unethical? Plug it into Kant's categorial imperative, or any other formulation of deontological ethics. As far as I can tell, there is no rule of moral action that genetic enhancement of emotional well-being somehow breaks. I conclude genetic enhancement of an intrinsic good (happiness) is ethically justified on deontological grounds. c. BuddhismBuddhists, uniquely among the world’s religions, focus on relieving suffering via Nirvana, the extinction of desire. True, a Buddhist may think the Noble Eightfold Path is a superior path to Nirvana than genetic modification, but in principle, a Buddhist ethics would support biotechnology if it worked. d. Islamic and Judeo-Christian ethicsThe Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions claim that God is infinitely compassionate and merciful. So that, if mere mortals can enrich the well-being of all life, it seems obvious that God would permit such actions. In fact, it seems blasphemous to claim that God would limit the scope of His benevolence by denying us the right to make ourselves happy. For support, see Kant’s quote above. e. Ethical pluralism or ethical pragmatismThe obvious point here is that no serious ethical pluralist or pragmatist would deny genetic enhancement that enriches emotional well-being on ethical grounds. Neither the means nor the ends would prove any problem. That said, we can still ask: why would an ethical pluralist or pragmatist take this project seriously? For many reasons. For example: the ethical pluralist/pragmatist would reason that inflicting suffering on others, by withholding a medical technology that can make suffering optional, is immoral. A simple matter of pragmatism.Another point: an ethical pluralist/pragmatist would look at objective descriptions of reality, and notice that 1 million people commit suicide each year, and 20 million suicides are attempted. Furthermore, they'd notice that mental health disorders (such as depression) are associated with 90% of those cases of suicide. [2] Thus, genetic modification that abolishes suffering and depression would solve the problem of suicide. Again, ethical pragmatism at its best.f. Alleged character-building function of suffering? Nietzsche famously said, “That which does not kill me makes me stronger.” But I think Nietzsche was misguided. All things equal, enriching emotional well-being strengthens motivation and makes us stronger psychologically. By contrast, prolonged negative emotions and low mood leads to learned helplessness and behavioral despair. g. Value nihilism and ethical skepticismWhat about the subjectivist or ethical skeptic who says all values are simply matters of opinion? In denying objective ethical value in the first place, the ethical system is practically irrelevant to the debate. But for the sake of argument, let's imagine the skeptic is in intense psychological pain. Regardless of one's ethical values, pain will intrinsically motivate that person to seek relief and emotional well-being. In doing so, the ethical skeptic thus acknowledges that it is wrong for himself to be in agony. We can extend this personal subjective experience, and argue allowing psychological pain is wrong for anyone, anywhere. Even the ethical skeptic would admit this much, and thus, even the ethical skeptic ascribes value to happiness.[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;[2] http://www.befrienders.org...;