Ingmar Persson

Unfit for the future? : the need for moral enhancement

1. Introduction 2. Human Nature and Common Sense Morality 3. Liberal Democracy 4. Catastrophic Misuses of Science 5. Responsibility for Omissions to Aid 6. The Tragedy of the Commons 7. The Tragedy of the Environment and Liberal Democracy 8. Authoritarianism and Democracy 9. Liberal Democracy and the End of History 10. Moral Enhancement as a Possible Way-Out Index

Getting moral enhancement right: the desirability of moral bioenhancement.

We respond to a number of objections raised by John Harris in this journal to our argument that we should pursue genetic and other biological means of morally enhancing human beings (moral bioenhancement). We claim that human beings now have at their disposal means of wiping out life on Earth and that traditional methods of moral education are probably insufficient to achieve the moral enhancement required to ensure that this will not happen. Hence, we argue, moral bioenhancement should be sought and applied. We argue that cognitive enhancement and technological progress raise acute problems because it is easier to harm than to benefit. We address objections to this argument. We also respond to objections that moral bioenhancement: (1) interferes with freedom; (2) cannot be made to target immoral dispositions precisely; (3) is redundant, since cognitive enhancement by itself suffices.

On the coordinating properties of some solvents. A vibrational spectroscopic study of mercury(II) halides and antimony(V) chloride in solution; new concepts for Lewis basicity scales of solvents

Abstract Raman and infrared spectra of the stretching vibrational frequencies of mercury(II) halides in solvents with widely different solvating abilities, have been recorded and combined with literature data. The frequencies decrease as the interaction of the solvent with the mercury atom in the HgX2 entity increases. Using published data from structure determinations by X-ray diffraction in solutions and crystals, an empirical correlation of the XHgX angle and the frequency shift is obtained. An empirical scale ranking the donor strength towards a soft acceptor is proposed for more than sixty solvents with widely varying solvating properties. The numerical donor strength DS values have been obtained as the decrease in the symmetric stretching vibration frequency of the HgBr2 molecule between the gas phase and solution. This DS scale is compared with some previously proposed scales, determined with the use of hard or borderline acceptors. The most well-known of these, the donor number DN scale based on enthalpy data of the adduct formation SbCl5·L (L = solvent molecule) in 1,2-dichloroethane is also compared with Raman measurements of the Sbue5f8Cl stretching frequencies of the SbCl5·L adducts in this solvent. The dependence of the measured donor strength of the solvent molecules on the properties of the acceptor and on the method used for the donor classification is discussed. An additional donor strength scale DH for hard acceptors is derived for 24 solvents from published data. The scale is based on Gibbs free energy of transfer of the sodium ion from a solvent to a reference solvent (1,2-dichloroethane). There is hardly any correlation between the soft DS and the hard DH scales, while the DS and DN scales show a fair agreement for solvents with hard donor atoms.

Determination of gibbs free energy of transfer for some univalent ions from water to methanol, acetonitrile, dimethylsulfoxide, pyridine, tetrahydrothiophene and liquid ammonia; standard electrode potentials of some couples in these solvents

Abstract The free energy of transfer, ΔG°tr, for 21 univalent ions are determined from water to methanol, acetonitrile, dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), pyridine, tetrahydrothiophene and liquid ammonia. These solvents show a wide range of donor properties, whereby water and methanol are regarded as hard donors, dimethylsulfoxide and acetonitrile are on the borderline between hard and soft, and the remaining solvents are regarded as typical soft donors. The ΔG°tr values of ionic compounds are calculated from solubility product measurements of 1:1 salts. The extrathermodynamic tetraphenylarsonium tetraphenylborate (TATB) assumption has been applied in order to calculate the contributions from the single ions. The TATB assumption implies that the two large ions Ph4As+ and BPh4− are equally solvated, thus ΔG°tr(AsPh4+)=ΔG°tr(BPh4−), for all solvent pairs. Standard electrode potentials in non-aqueous solvents can be calculated from the standard electrode potentials in water and the ΔG°tr values. The standard electrode potentials calculated from the solubility product measurements, and the potentiometrically determined ones were found to be in excellent agreement. The extrathermodynamic assumption has thereby been experimentally shown to be close to the truth.

Determination of heats and entropies of transfer for some univalent ions from water to methanol, acetonitrile, dimethylsulfoxide, pyridine and tetrahydrothiophene

Abstract The heats of solution, Δ H ° s , for a large number of 1:1 salts have been determined in water, methanol, acetonitrile, dimethylsulfoxide, pyridine and tetrahydrothiophene. The heats of transfer, Δ H ° tr , from water to the other solvents for 21 univalent ions have been calculated from the heats of solution determined in this study and values taken from the literature. The extrathermodynamic tetraphenylarsonium tetraphenylborate assumption, stating that, Δ H ° tr (AsPh 4 + )=Δ H ° tr (BPh 4 − ) for all pairs of solvents, have been applied to calculate the Δ H ° tr values for single ions. The entropies of transfer, Δ S ° tr , of single ions have been calculated from Gibbs free energies and heats of transfer. The solvents used in this study represent a wide range of donor properties. Water and methanol are hard oxygen donor solvents, which solvate hard acceptors fairly well and soft acceptors poorly. Dimethylsulfoxide is, for the studied acceptors, an oxygen donor solvent. It solvates hard acceptors very well and soft acceptors fairly well. Pyridine, a nitrogen donor, and tetrahydrothiophene, a sulfur donor, are typical soft donor solvents, solvating soft acceptors very well and hard acceptors poorly. Acetonitrile shows a specific solvation of univalent d 10 acceptors, while it solvates other acceptors fairly poorly. The halides are more weakly solvated in aprotic solvents because these are not able to form hydrogen bonds. In spite of stronger solvation of several ions in water, the heats of transfer to other solvents are generally negative. The negative Δ S ° tr values arise from the difference in bulk order between water which is well-ordered through hydrogen bonding, and the less ordered aprotic solvents.

On the solvation thermodynamics of the neutral mercury(II) halides in different solvents at 25 °C

Abstract Solubilities and heats of solution have been determined for the mercury(II) halides in benzene, acetone, acetonitrile, triethylamine, pyridine, di-n- butylsulfide, tetrahydrothiophene, di-n-butylamine, piperidine and hexylamine. The free energies of solution were calculated from the solubilities. The free energies of solvation were obtained by combining the free energies of solution and sublimation. The heats of solvation were obtained analogously. The entropies of solvation have then been calculated from the free energies and heats of solvation. The heats of solvation do not follow the same sequence as the Raman active symmetric stretching frequencies, v1(Hgue5f8X), which are a measure of the bond strength of the Hgue5f8X bonds and indirectly also a measure of the strength of the Hg-solvate bonds. The heats of solvation are markedly less exothermic in solvents with a high degree of bulk order. The degree of bulk order depends on fairly strong intermolecular forces. The heat of solvation in one solvent can therefore be lower than in another one in spite of the fact that the solvate bonds are stronger. This is because energy is consumed when solvent molecules have to be taken out of the bulk structure when the solvation occurs.

The solvation thermodynamics of methylmercury(II) species derived from measurements of the heat of solution and the Henry's law constant

Abstract The heat solution, Δ H O s , for methylmercury(II) chloride in water was determined calorimetrically. Corresponding measurements in pyridine were made for the CH 3 HgX (X = Cl, Br and I) complexes, as well as for dimethylmercury(II). The Δ H o s values were used in combination with Δ H o sub orΔ H o vap data from the literature to calculate the heats of solvation. The free energy of solvation in water, expressed as the Henrys law constant, H , was determined for the methylmercury(II) hydroxide complex. Mercury species of environmental importance are classified according to their ability to be transported from water to air, i.e. by using H . The ability to form hydrogen bond of the ligands is stated to be an important factor determining the magnitude of H in the air/water two phase system. Comparison of the solvation thermodynamics in the well-structured water with considerable weaker solvation properties than pyridine, with pyridine which has almost no solvent structure, implies the important relation between H and the entropy of solvation.

The Art of Misunderstanding Moral Bioenhancement

In our book Unfit for the Future and a number of papers, we have argued that there is a dangerous mismatch between, on the one hand, the tremendous power of scientific technology, which has created societies with millions of citizens, and, on the other hand, our moral capacities, which have been shaped by evolution for life in small, close-knit societies with primitive technology. To overcome this mismatch before it results in the downfall of human civilization, human beings stand in acute need of moral enhancement, not only by traditional means but also by biomedical means, should this turn out to be possible. After summarizing this argument, we respond to two critics, Michael Hauskeller and Robert Sparrow.

Should moral bioenhancement be compulsory? Reply to Vojin Rakic

In his challenging paper,1 Vojin Rakic argues against our claim that ‘there are strong reasons to believe’ that moral bioenhancement should be obligatory or compulsory if it can be made safe and effective.2 Rakic starts by criticising an argument that we employed against John Harris.3 ,4 In this argument we maintain, among other things, that moral bioenhancement cannot be wholly effective if our will is free in what is called an ‘indeterministic’ or ‘contra-causal sense’; that is, if our choices are not fully determined by our biology and environmental circumstances. Rakic contends that we ‘do not take into account the possibility that we can have an entirely free will that does not limit the effectiveness of moral bio-enhancement’. We can use ‘our freedom to decide to be morally bio-enhanced’.nnIn reply, we would like to insist that if our freedom is freedom in this indeterministic sense, we cannot use this freedom to decide to subject (and to actually subject) ourselves to effective moral bioenhancement, since this effectiveness presupposes that our will is fully determined by biological causes that this enhancement influences. If certain sub-atomic processes are indeterministic, probabilistic, we cannot make them deterministic. We cannot change the laws …

The turn for ultimate harm: a reply to Fenton

Elizabeth Fenton has criticised an earlier article by the authors in which the claim was made that, by providing humankind with means of causing its destruction, the advance of science and technology has put it in a perilous condition that might take the development of genetic or biomedical techniques of moral enhancement to get out of. The development of these techniques would, however, require further scientific advances, thus forcing humanity deeper into the danger zone created by modern science. Fenton argues that the benefits of scientific advances are undervalued. The authors believe that the argument rather relies upon attaching a special weight to even very slight risks of major catastrophes, and attempt to vindicate this weighting.