Abstract
Rather than ask a common question—how brain ‘abnormalities’ affect moral assessments of the wrongdoer—this paper considers how our response to the good person might change on learning that their unusual brain enhances their goodness. Is the person with an extremely ‘good’ brain morally better, or worse indeed, than the rest of us? What, if anything, might it mean for us to be enhanced relative to the good person or for the ‘good’ person to be enhanced relative to us? What follows ethically for neuroenhancement and our approach to criminal offending? An insight, given added prominence by the change in focus, is that interventions have the potential not just to change the person, but to change what it is to be persons.