Opinion among 500 medical students in regards to the bioethics of neuroenhancement

Fairness is a relative term. It has no objective meaning. What one person finds fair, another may not. So it is useless to society as a measure of anything. That is not to say it is completely useless. It's just useless as a measure, since it is subjective.

I actually think people without any cognitive deficits using drugs to enhance themselves, is perfectly fair. Why would it not be? Does me getting a better grade on a test, or making it easier for myself to learn a subject, affect anyone else at all? Only if other people make it so.

Now some will say, "what about grading on curves, or only limited numbers of spots in schools?" Well then I would say those things are not fair. Even then, that definition of fairness is my own manifestation, based on my subjective definition of an ideal situation. Does my opinion really matter from an objective standpoint?

It's my opinion that a lot of the world's problems stems from a single concept, that is beat into our psyche from birth. That is the concept that everything needs to be a competition; that every winner must come with a loser. Think about it. We are shoved into team sports at a young age, where it is us versus them. One team wins, the other loses. We are taught to have pride in our countries, and to have rivalries with others. We are taught to take pride in our schools, but put down other schools because they are in different cities. It's madness! Do I think UofA is a shitty school, just because I went to ASU? Hell no. Do I think the USA is the best country in the world, simply because I was born here? Certainly not. Do I think the Arizona Cardinals are better than the San Francisco 49ers, just because I live in this desert? I don't play professional football, so why would I attach some of my personal identity to a team, simply because of geographic relativity?

I really think that concept of "us versus them", "my team against yours", "me trying to surpass you," has created an environment not conducive for humans to advance as a species. There are always going to be people that are objectively better at certain things than others. That is just reality. We should foster that in people, and get everyone to strive to be the best person they can be, based on what they were naturally given. When we try to compete with each other at all expense, we devolve into a match where people try to make rules to stifle other people's abilities; so their lack of some trait will not hinder them as much. In the end, that makes humanity as a whole worse off. Competition is good, but only when that competition is done to try and make the best out of everyone.

So that long rant essentially boils down to this: morality is a relativistic approach to solving an objective problem. It is always going to end up reducing the potential of the human race as a whole, while stifling the freedoms that everyone desires. We can compete with one another in such a way, to where it leads to everyone improving who they are, rather than trying to hamstring others to get a leg up on the competition. Trying to bring morality into the use of chemical compounds for cognitive enhancement, is simply trying to apply a subjective set of restraints on a world that only gives a shit about objective reality. If a chemical compound can make you better than you currently are, and you freely make the choice to use it, that is fair.

So then comes the problem: what if you disagree with my definition of fairness, and want to stop me from using said compound? If I did not willingly agree to change my subjective opinion on the matter, you would have to use force to compel me to. This is where governments, laws, and regulations come into play. They are a forceful way to attempt to apply a subjective structure of fairness on a group of people. Some do it better than others. However, it is always a forceful way to compel people to comply with a collective set of moral definitions. There is nothing inherent about it.

/r/Nootropics Thread