Cognitive Neuroenhancement: Health, Cultural, and Legal Issues

New developments in neuroscience, especially since the Decade of the Brain, have made neuroenhancement an important domain of philosophical reflection. Neuroenhance?ment is usually understood as any intervention (natural, social or technological) on the brain that aims to improve its capabilities beyond clinical therapy and good health (better intelectual performance and abler minds) and even as a form of generating happier per?sons. In this paper, it will be sustained that the goal of neuroenhancement, like cosmetic surgery, fits in and is encouraged by the current conception and practise of medicine. Af?ter, the paper will identify and describe some cultural roots of neuroenhancement (greek myths, literature and films), which characterize human nature and western civilization. The last issue of the paper will discuss if it is fair to use biotechnological power to achieve human desires of unlimited cognitive enhancement. Based on John Rawls’s Theory of Justice, firstly, the paper will argue that fairness requires equal rights for all persons. In this regard it sustains that one of the necessary conditions of a fair neu?roenhancement is safety for all citizens, or at least a prudential weighing of its potential benefits and risks. This is the first step to provide citizens fair conditions for a well informed decision and a fair way to exercise other basic rights, as freedom of thought and freedom of will (personal autonomy). Secondly, in accordance to Rawls and its second principle of justice, enhancement is unfair unless there is equal opportunity for all to obtain it. Enhancement can lead to exacerbating inequalities, if it is not guar?anteed equality in opportunity to all citizens in the same circumstances. Thirdly, the paper will sustain that the respect for the difference principle is the third necessary condition for fairness in neuroenhancement. If the cognitive achievements are safe and maximize the wealfare of all, it should be regarded as fair. Yet if cognitive en?hancement promotes more inequalities between people it should be considered unfair.