Cognitive Enhancers: The Immorality of Having an Edge

People can be pushed to their breaking point trying to figure out what it takes to be the best. Should "the best" be decided upon personal merit with no help from external resources? Or, is it okay to take advantage of resources that could potentially help one climb to the top? Using a very mild example, a child with a calculator would surely give him or her an advantage on a math test over a child without a calculator. Cognitive enhancers also give people an advantage, but in a much more profound way. They increase one's ability to concentrate and even his or her ability to remember information. People use cognitive enhancers such as Adderall, Provigil or Ritalin to improve their ability to focus and remember information. We are faced with the question of whether or not they are moral to use even if there is no medical need for them. In order to do this, we must look at a theory of morality. The appropriate theory here is that of John Rawls. Through Rawls' theory, we will find that the use of cognitive-enhancers is unethical and ought to be considered immoral.

Before discussing how cognitive-enhancers fit into Rawls' theory, we must first have a better understanding of the theory itself. Rawls' Liberal Theory of Justice consists of two principles that are decided on while members of a society are under what is called the "original position." In the original position, members are behind a veil of ignorance where "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like" (Rawls 630). In other words, everyone in the original position is completely blinded from who they are and therefore decisions are made according to what would be to the advantage of every member of society, regardless of social status or personal assets. Rawls encourages us to "think of the parties in the initial situation as rational and mutually disinterested" (Rawls 631). Meaning, participants are not egoists, they are simply just uninterested in each other because they know nothing about one another or even themselves. This prevents prejudices or the exclusion of one person or one type of person. The contracting of principles of justice under the original position is based on morality. The idea is that the participants behind the veil of ignorance in the original position are literally making a contract not concerning particular laws, but rather concerning how it is that they will treat one another in the formation of a society. The original position insures that the fundamental agreements reached in it are fair because the status quo is disregarded while the agreements are made (Rawls 632). From this original position, Rawls says, a society is likely to decide on two principles of justice, a principle of liberty and a principle of difference.

Before delving into the two principles of justice, it is important to realize that the process of reaching these two principles and the outcome when the two principles are utilized is most appropriate when discussing cognitive enhancers. Rawls understands that even under the original position, it is easy to make convictions of justice that do not necessarily hold true. In this case, Rawls suggests that there are two options, "We can either modify the account of the initial situation or we can revise our existing judgments" (Rawls 634). This back and forth, or rather a kind of elenchus, is referred to as reflective equilibrium. The idea is to "find a description of the initial situation that both expresses reasonable conditions and yields principles which match our considered judgments" (Rawls 634). Because cognitive enhancers are so complex, the arguments in favor or against their use can often become very convoluted. This is where reflective equilibrium would be most beneficial. On one hand, people are acknowledging that allowing young children to use cognitive enhancers could be potentially dangerous. On the other, they do not want this restriction to put them at a disadvantage in school. Both sides have reasonable arguments, but it is important to go back to the original position and reassess whether it is the conviction of justice that we have wrong, or if we need to modify the conditions of the original position. In this case, how would we decide what makes one conception of justice more just than another? Rawls says it is clear "that one conception of justice is more reasonable that another, or justifiable with respect to it, if rational persons in the initial situation would choose its principles over those of the other for the role of justice" (Rawls 632). In other words, if one would choose one answer over the other while under the conditions of the original position, then that answer is the just one. This may seem too obvious, but it is a simple and consistent way to resolve conflicts such as the one aforementioned. The concept of using the original position and reflective equilibrium to develop the agreed upon principles of justice is called justice as fairness.

Rawls describes justice as fairness as consisting of two parts: "an interpretation of the initial situation and of the problem of choice posed there and a set of principles which, it is argued would be agreed to" (Rawls 631). This is all done to assure the most advantageous outcome to everyone as possible. Using justice as fairness would prevent people from advocating for principles that would only help their personal natural or social circumstances. However, the name "justice as fairness" does not mean that what is just is necessarily what is fair (Rawls 630). It would be impossible, in regards to social status and natural abilities, to put everyone on an even playing field. If this were the case, there would be no reason to develop principles of justice at all. The hope is that using justice as fairness will help create principles of justice that benefit everyone, although some people will inevitably be at more of an advantage than others. Another important part of justice as fairness is that the idea is not to adopt a form of government or a specific type of society, but to accept certain moral principles (Rawls 632). This keeps us away from trying to reach an end-state and developing our principles of justice around it. We are essentially allowing ourselves to consider each situation separately and to make a decision using the developed principles of justice. However, we need to carefully decide whether the use of cognitive enhancers is just before acting so hastily. All of these aspects make Rawls' theory of justice the most applicable theory when thinking about cognitive enhancers. When we evaluate the two principles of justice and how cognitive enhancers fit in, it will be clear that the use of these drugs is unethical and an injustice in many ways. Using the two principles of justice, we will find that this is exactly the case.

Rawls' first principle of justice that he says would be agreed upon under the conditions of the original position is the principle of liberty. The principle of liberty says "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty that is compatible with a similar liberty for others" (Rawls 629). It is extremely important to order this principle before the second, which we will discuss later. This is because under the original position, it is crucial for the members to start with a principle that establishes equal liberty for all. These basic liberties include the right to vote, be eligible for public office, the right to hold property, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure (Rawls 635). At first glance, it may seem that cognitive enhancers do not obstruct any of these basic liberties. However, one of the biggest concerns of the growing use of cognitive enhancers would interfere with one of the most delicate freedoms- the freedom of thought. Coercion is a major consequence of the increasing popularity of cognitive enhancers. As cognitive enhancers become more developed and more readily available, it is not hard to imagine that they will be in higher demand. There is the possibility that people, including children, may eventually be encouraged to take these drugs. Even more frightening, people may be threatened or feel forced to take them based on success and job opportunities. In this case, no one would be forced to take them, but the temptation is difficult to resist. The difference between being at the top of your class and being somewhere in the middle could very well become the use of cognitive enhancers. This goes back to the conflict mentioned earlier from the poll in Nature. Even though it may not be the healthiest choice, parents are encouraging their children to take them in fear that if they do not, they may not be able to keep up with the best students in that school. The idea of coercion seems to go even further. If the requirement for being hired for a lucrative job is taking a pill every day, the choice seems simple. However, this is taking away equal opportunity for people who choose not to take the drugs, even if they possess an innate ability to focus over a long period of time. Although many of the basic liberties are safe from the use of cognitive enhancers, the freedom of thought is thwarted in that people are being coerced into taking them. Just by looking at the first principle, the use of cognitive enhancers is unjust because it impedes with the basic liberties that should be available to everyone.

The second principle of justice, always a second priority to the first, that would be agreed upon under the conditions of the original position is the principle of difference. This says, "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all" (Rawls 629). Rawls uses this second principle to acknowledge that in real life, everything is not going to be even. People's assets will not all be the same, and so there has to be something to make the inequalities advantageous to everyone. In fact, Rawls says that the inequalities should especially be to the advantage of the least well off. For example, it would be to the benefit of everyone that physicians be paid a higher salary because it would make it a more competitive position and therefore lead to better doctors. An inequality such as this would be to everyone's advantage-especially the sick. When deciding if cognitive enhancers are just according to this principle, we must first decide if they create inequalities. It has been proven that the improvements seen from using cognitive enhancers are less for healthy people than people who actually need them to compensate for problems such as ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). This would mean that the disadvantage caused by a disorder such as ADHD, would only be exacerbated. There would be no possibility of leveling the playing field if people with such a disorder had to take the drugs just to catch up to where healthy people would be if they were not also taking them. Also, cognitive enhancers can be incredibly easy for some to access, but impossible for others. It all depends on how much money you have and how available they are in your area. It boils down to having access to them and being able to afford them, and clearly it is something that people of a wealthier status would be able to take advantage of. Cognitive enhancers continue to become more and more effective as they are in higher demand. In fact, if the newer enhancers become an incredibly desired commodity, it could create a disparity between the rich and the richer. Our social structure would be stretched further and further apart. Therefore, there is obviously some inequality resulting from the use of cognitive enhancers.

Under Rawls' theory of justice, this would be completely acceptable as long as the inequality is to everyone's advantage and is attached to positions and offices open to all. One might argue that the advantages of healthy people using cognitive enhancers are so great that it totally outweighs the disadvantages for people who choose not to use them or do not have access to them. This would not be an acceptable argument under Rawls' theory because "one is not allowed to justify differences in income or organizational powers on the ground that the disadvantages of those in one position are outweighed by the greater advantages of those in another" (Rawls 637). So, the use of cognitive enhancers would have to somehow benefit the least well off in a significant way. This does not seem plausible in a real life situation because in almost any competitive scenario, it is key to be focused. If there is a drug in your system helping you focus, this does not do anything but put your opponent at a further disadvantage. Not only does cheating hurt fellow colleagues or opponents in a game, it hurts the person using the enhancers. If started at a young age, how will children learn to develop a work ethic? It is possible that they will never feel the gratification of succeeding on their own merit. They will grow up knowing that it is the drugs helping them focus. In no way does the use of cognitive enhancers seem to benefit everyone. In fact, they could ultimately be to the disadvantage of everyone involved. According to Rawls' second principle, the use of cognitive enhancers is unjust.

To confirm that the two principles of justice would indeed be chosen under the conditions of the original position, Rawls discusses what he calls the maximin principle. This is the idea that rational and reasonable participants in the original position will seek out those principles that have the greatest potential to maximize their desires but also minimize the risk of loss (Rawls 638). The principle of liberty and the principle of difference are the two principles that would Rawls says would best maximize one's desires but minimize the risk of loss in the event that he or she is on the lower end of the social class structure. The maximin principle would apply to anything under those principles of justice, including cognitive enhancers. As Rawls says; "the rule directs our attention to the worst that can happen under any proposed course of action, and to decide in the light of that" (Rawls 638). At this point, we already know that cognitive enhancers are not just under the given principles. But, to confirm that, we need to prove that cognitive enhancers maximize the desires while also maximizing the loss. This would inherently go against the maximin principle.

It is important to look at why exactly prescription drugs are regulated in the first place. In the case of every drug, including cognitive enhancers, they are not regulated because of the benefits that they can have, but because of the safety concerns and potential for abuse. The benefits of using cognitive enhancing drugs may be great for some people, but the side effects for others can be so drastic that it is not worth the risk to have them available to just anyone. This especially applies to children. We know what the drugs do to healthy adults, but we do not know the type of effect it can have on healthy children. It could be completely innocent, or it could affect their ability to focus and retain information forever. So, already we can see that the safety concerns of prescription drugs outweigh its healing or enhancing properties. In this sense, cognitive enhancers do not maximize desires without also maximizing the potential harm.

The side effects may be an obvious downfall of cognitive enhancers, but there are considerable ways in which our society as a whole could be affected. It may seem easy to simply take a pill for every problem that arises, but by doing that, we are changing the way we deal with social issues. This creates a sort of laziness within our society, taking the easy path to solve our problems rather than the right path. And, when the use of cognitive enhancers becomes so casual that everyone starts taking them, it could lead to a robotic society. While this is certainly a productive society, this does not appear to be a happy one, or one that anyone would desire to live in. At this point, we would have a tirelessly efficient society, but nothing unique. If the advancement of cognitive enhancers would lead us to this, it is evident that the use of these drugs does not create a situation that would maximize our desires and minimize our losses.

Everyone wants to be the best- the smartest, the most athletic, the most artistic. Without a doubt, it takes something that no one else has to climb to the top. You have to have the intangibles-the desire, the burning passion to succeed in whatever it is you are working toward. Cognitive enhancers are not the solution to what it takes to be the best. As we can see from Rawls' theory, it does not abide by either principle of justice developed under the original position, and it certainly does not follow the maximin principle. They create inequalities that are not to everyone's advantage, and in fact, it is apparent that they are to no one's advantage in the long run. Cognitive enhancers can definitely give you an edge. They can help you be successful in a way that you never were before. However, it is possible that we would become so overworked and so competitive in our journey toward success, that we would forget what success really is. It is based on merit and how hard you worked for something, even if it did not turn out to be perfect. Success also means that whatever you accomplished, you did so justly. According to Rawls' theory of justice, cognitive enhancers are not just, and are not an option on the path to success.

Works Cited

Rawls, John. "A Liberal Theory of Justice." 629-41