Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
…
13 pages
1 file
Whatever ethical stance one takes in the debate regarding the ethics of human enhancement, one or more reference points are required to assess its morality. Some have suggested looking at the bioethical notions of safety, justice, and/or autonomy to find such reference points. Others, arguing that those notions are limited with respect to assessing the morality of human enhancement, have turned to human nature, human authenticity, or human dignity as reference points, thereby introducing some perfectionist assumptions into the debate. In this article, we ask which perfectionist assumptions should be used in this debate. After a critique of views that are problematic, we take a positive approach, suggesting some perfectionist elements that can lend guidance to the practice of human enhancement, based on the work of Martha Nussbaum's Capability Approach. We suggest that the central capabilities can be used to define the human aspect of human enhancement and thereby allow a moral evaluation of enhancement interventions. These central capabilities can be maximized harmoniously to postulate what an ideal human would look like. Ultimately, the aim of this article is twofold. First, it seeks to make explicit the perfectionist assumptions found in the debate and eliminate those that are problematic. Second, the paper clarifies an element that is often neglected in the debate about human enhancement, the view of the ideal human towards which human enhancement should strive. Here, we suggest that some central capabilities that are essential for an ideal human being can be maximized harmoniously and can therefore serve as possible reference points to guide human enhancement.
Global Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 2023
Human enhancement theses are epistemologically confusing and ethically challenging; they have been triggering a wide variety of academic and public debates. The present paper is aimed at classifying the different types of arguments supporting the debate on human enhancement, which, in particular, have important implications for the concept of health. Therefore, contrary to a trend in human enhancement literature that points out perfection as the milestone to improve the lives of human beings, this study shows that this scenario is intrinsically linked to inconsistent, theoretically poor issues.
Journal of medical ethics, 2013
Both, bioconservatives and bioliberals, should seek a discussion about ideas of human perfection, making explicit their underlying assumptions about what makes for a good human life. This is relevant, because these basic, and often implicit ideas, inform and influence judgements and choices about human enhancement interventions. Both neglect, and polemical but inconsistent use of the complex ideas of perfection are leading to confusion within the ethical debate about human enhancement interventions, that can be avoided by tackling the notion of perfection directly. In the recent debates, bioconservatives have prominently argued against the ‘pursuit of perfection’ by biotechnological means. In the first part of this paper, we show that—paradoxically—bioconservatives themselves explicitly embrace specific conceptions of human perfection and perfectionist assumptions about the good human life in order to argue against the use of enhancement technologies. Yet, we argue that the bioconservative position contains an untenable ambiguity between criticising and endorsing ideas of human perfection. Hence, they stand in need of clarifying their stance on human perfection. In the second part of the paper, we ask whether bioliberals in fact (implicitly) advocate a particular conception of perfection, or whether they are right in holding that they do not, and that discussing perfection is obsolete anyway. We show that bioliberals also rely on a specific idea of human perfection, based on the idea of autonomy. Hence, their denial of the relevance of perfection in the debate is unconvincing and has to be revised.
This book analyses recent moves in the debate over human enhancement from two different perspectives: moral philosophy and science. It contains not only a thorough consideration on the promise, limitations, and perils of biotechnological improvement, but also offers a lucid account of a systematic evolution of the idea of excellence from antiquity to the present-day project of the post-human condition. The book examines various approaches to key anthropological concepts such as agency, autonomy, practical rationality, and normativity, pointing out their relevance to philosophical and biomedical research. All these issues are addressed by scholars representing different fields of study including philosophy , law, biophysics, and cognitive science. They attempt to answer the question of whether biotechnological interventions may result in bringing about a better person.
Philosophy Compass, 2014
Ethical debate surrounding human enhancement, especially by biotechnological means, has burgeoned since the turn of the century. Issues discussed include whether specific types of enhancement are permissible or even obligatory, whether they are likely to produce a net good for individuals and for society, and whether there is something intrinsically wrong in playing God with human nature.We characterize the main camps on the issue, identifying three main positions: permissive, restrictive and conservative positions. We present the major sub-debates and lines of argument from each camp. The review also gives a flavor of the general approach of key writers in the literature such as Julian Savulescu, Nick Bostrom, Michael Sandel, and Leon Kass.
This article deals with the understanding of human beings in the project of human enhancement. It shows that, in the voices of some representatives of the latter, there is a naturalistic tendency to reduce human beings either to their environment or to virtual reality. In such cases, the resulting entity would lack interiority as well as the first-person perspective. In this paper, it is argued that the possibilities opened up by biomedical sciences cannot release us from employing a multi-dimensional and integral concept of human beings wherein interiority plays an important role. The human enhancement project is not only a matter of technical feasibility; it also fundamentally concerns the essence of humanness. Hence the question of the nature of human beings and their condition is an indispensable part of this enterprise. Keywords: Human enhancement – Human beings – Environment – First person perspective Introduction. In contemporary philosophy, discussions on human enhancement are well advanced. There is a huge body of literature on the topic with new subfields emerging. This debate is in tune with the constant longing of the human beings to improve their lives and wellbeing. Apart from appropriate personal efforts it has found expression in various educational and political programs and undertakings. Contemporary efforts to enhance the human being have the advantage of drawing on the latest discoveries in genetics , genetic engineering, pharmacology and even information technology. Although still at the beginning of their practical implementations and uncertain of how viable they are, relevant discussions between philosophers and futurologists are, by contrast, quite complex and nuanced. There are many aspects of these discussions which are worthy of examining. This paper however concentrates on one issue only, namely who or what is the subject of those enhancing procedures. In other words, what is the understanding of the essence of the human being which is the subject of improvement. This issue is complex and can be approached from many angles. In this paper, the attention is limited to current discussions between different representatives and adherents of human enhancement, and by default their implied understanding of the human being. Finally a critical assessment is offered together with postulates for further discussion. However, at the outset some light should be shed on why such discussions take place at all and how they can be structured in a relatively straightforward way.
Global Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 2022
The biotechnological advances obtained in the last decades have configurated a particular scenario about the limits of what we can do with ourselves, especially by revealing that the human enhancement debate still is epistemologically confused and ethically naive. As we intend to discuss, that happens for two reasons: the first one is associated with the moral evaluation of enhancement concepts, in other words, whether or not we would be entitled to promote substantial changes that jeopardize the conservation of our own way of life; the second reason, intrinsically attached to the first one, is to neglect the evolutionary history of human beings and to claim, therefore, that human enhancement should be carefully evaluated because we would not be able to foresee the possible disastrous risks in our future. It is right into these arguments that the debate between bioconservatives and transhumanists becomes epistemologically confused and ethically weak.
2011
With multi-year funding from the US National Science Foundation (NSF), a team of researchers has just released a comprehensive report detailing ethical issues arising from human enhancement (Allhoff et al. 2009). While we direct the interested reader to that (much longer) report, we also thank the editors of this journal for the invitation to provide an executive summary thereof.
Zeitschrift für Ethik und Moralphilosophie, 2019
Although dominated by consequentialist and deontological thinking, the debate about human enhancement has been enriched by several arguments from virtue theory and from virtue ethics. This article provides an overview of the virtue ethical arguments in the debate and identifies several topics in the ethics of human enhancement where the argumentative resources of virtue ethics have not yet been sufficiently considered.
De betere mens / The Better Human, 2021
This dissertation is entitled 'The Better Human', and has the subtitle 'A medical-ethical framework for human enhancement from a Christian perspective'. Its theme is human enhancement, with a focus on functional enhancement. In order to arrive at a medical-ethical framework, I seek to discuss as many relevant aspects of human and functional enhancement as possible. To obtain a good view on the subject and to go beyond a mere procedural ethics, this study draws on several scientific disciplines. It is neither purely cultural-historical, nor purely theological or philosophical. The nature of the research is interdisciplinary, driven by the central research question and drawing on content from various disciplines. The insights from these fields have been integrated with a view to answering the research question.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Science and Engineering Ethics, 2022
Science and Engineering Ethics, 2013
NanoEthics, 2012
Erkenntnis, 2013