Essay Sample about The God Machine

The ‘God Machine’ is a thought experiment based on the growing use of optogenetics, the study and control of cells through genetic engineering. In this concept, genetically-modified neurons transmit information to a bioquantum-supercomputer capable of receiving and interpreting the thoughts and desires of all those connected to it (Savulescu and Persson 10-11). The Machine is capable of modifying an individual’s thoughts/desires, but out of respect for autonomy, only does so in serious cases. For example, the God Machine will cause a would-be murderer to ‘have a change of heart’, but will not interfere in cases of a ‘white lie’. Due to the Machine’s prevention of egregious and/or violent crimes, the need for incarceration and capital punishment is no more. The God Machine adds to the general wellbeing of the society, and therefore is supported by the Utilitarian moral system.

Utilitarianism, or act consequentialism, places well-being as its moral focus. The action producing the greatest welfare is not only morally desirable, but required. The best choice, the morally required choice, is that which produces the greatest net good, i.e., that generates more good effects than bad (Shafer-Landau 61). Positive wellbeing includes happiness, knowledge, and autonomy, among others. Negative wellbeing includes pain and suffering, sadism, and betrayal. In analyzing the accordance between the God Machine and Utilitarianism, we must analyze the importance of both autonomy and lack of suffering. Firstly, does the God Machine result in a lack of autonomy of its subjects? And second, does this loss of autonomy outweigh the other positive effects of implementing the Machine, such as a lack of suffering?

The God Machine does restrict the autonomy of individuals, except in the case of voluntary connection. Savulescu and Persson (2012) use the example of Ulysses and the Sirens to explain this scenario: 

Thinking clearly, with all the facts before him, he formed a plan which would enable him to both hear the song of the Sirens and live. His order that he should remain shackled was an expression of his autonomy. 

In the grip of the Sirens’ song, Ulysses’ strongest desire was that his men release him. But it was an irrational desire. At the time, this may have been his only desire. The song of the Sirens was irresistible. (11-12)

Being shackled prevented Ulysses from following his desire to join the Sirens, the same way the God Machine would prevent the following of an impulse to murder, but since this binding was agreed to beforehand, it is respectful of one’s autonomy. Voluntary connectors are authorizing the Machine to make certain decisions for them (e.g., not to murder) in order to achieve their goal (being morally good), which is their choice. 

Savulescu and Persson’s ‘Freedom Lovers’, those wishing to avoid the control of the Machine and thus enroll in extra moral enhancement courses to expunge evil intentions, are another (though perhaps less universal) example of maintaining autonomy under the God Machine (11). By never having criminal intent, the machine will never have need to interfere. In both the Volunteers and the Freedom Lovers, the God Machine affects their life choices, but their autonomy remains intact.

No argument can be made to deny that those unwillingly connected to the Machine will experience a loss of autonomy; the Machine does not allow certain (criminal) choices to be made. However, autonomy is not the only value that is intrinsic to wellbeing. Perhaps even more important to the wellbeing of a society is happiness and a lack of suffering. The God Machine removes some personal choice, but otherwise has no negative effect on the individual. There is no discernible difference between an ‘organic’ change of heart (one occurring solely in the individual’s mind) and one caused by the Machine. The individual will experience a lack of choice, but their unawareness of this denial will alleviate the feelings of injustice and insecurity that would otherwise arise.

In addition to not producing suffering, the God Machine also prevents much suffering. The Machine prevents all violent crimes from occurring, causing no more to suffer the physical and mental trauma of violence. Additionally, by preventing crimes before they happen, there is no longer a need for incarceration or capital punishment. (Utilitarianism weighs the wellbeing of all individuals equally, so it is important to consider the positives for would-be criminals and victims alike.) A moral system that bases itself on wellbeing must be in support of a system that will effectively prevent the large-scale suffering of a society.

Utilitarianism supports the God Machine as it promotes the general wellbeing of a society. While it undeniably limits the autonomy of those unwillingly connected, in the cases of the Volunteers and the Freedom Lovers, autonomy is respected. Additionally, this loss of autonomy is not ever-present; the Machine will not prevent you from making any ‘wrong’ choices, simply those with severe negative impacts on others. The positive effects of the God Machine, such as prevention of suffering caused by both violent crime and incarceration, must outweigh the negative effect of restricted choice. Moreover, the God Machine is actually more Utilitarian than the system currently in place in the United States. Our society has ‘free choice’, but violent crimes are forbade by law and punishable by imprisonment and even death. The autonomy of individuals may be better protected, but their suffering is also increased. A society implementing the God Machine will reduce its citizens’ autonomy somewhat, but will generate an overall greater good by eradicating the suffering caused by violent crimes. Such a system must be supported by Utilitarianism.

Works Cited

Savulescu, Julian, and Ingmar Persson. “Moral Enhancement, Freedom, and the God Machine.” Monist, vol. 95, no. 3, July 2012, pp. 399–421., https://doi.org/10.5840/monist201295321. 

Shafer-Landau, Russ. “Consequentialism.” Living Ethics: An Introduction with Readings, Oxford University Press, New York ; Oxford, 2019, pp. 61–68.