Human Enhancement, Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (2):359-378 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper tries to clarify, strengthen and respond to two prominent objections to the development and use of human enhancement technologies. Both objections express concerns about the link between enhancement and the drive for hyperagency. The first derives from the work of Sandel and Hauskeller—and is concerned with the negative impact of hyperagency on social solidarity. In responding to their objection, I argue that although social solidarity is valuable, there is a danger in overestimating its value and in neglecting some obvious ways in which the enhancement project can be planned so as to avoid its degradation. The second objection, though common to several writers, has been most directly asserted by Saskia Nagel, and is concerned with the impact of hyperagency on the burden and distribution of responsibility. Though this is an intriguing objection, I argue that not enough has been done to explain why this is morally problematic. I try to correct for this flaw before offering a variety of strategies for dealing with the problems raised

Similar books and articles

Human Enhancement and the Giftedness of Life.Michael Hauskeller - 2011 - Philosophical Papers 40 (1):55-79.
Genetic Enhancement and Moral Attitudes Toward the Given.Terrance Mcconnell - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):369-380.
Mastery Without Mystery: Why there is no Promethean Sin in Enhancement.Guy Kahane - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):355-368.
The role of solidarity in social responsibility for health.Massimo Reichlin - 2011 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14 (4):365-370.
Enhancement and human nature: the case of Sandel.T. Lewens - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (6):354-356.
Is there a problem with enhancement?Frances M. Kamm - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (3):5 – 14.
Moral enhancement.Thomas Douglas - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3):228-245.
The Ethics of Human Enhancement.Alberto Giubilini & Sagar Sanyal - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (4):233-243.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-07-14

Downloads
2,323 (#3,611)

6 months
175 (#17,592)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Danaher
University College, Galway

Citations of this work

An evaluative conservative case for biomedical enhancement.John Danaher - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (9):611-618.
Cognitive artifacts and human enhancement.Léo Peruzzo Júnior & Murilo Karasinski - 2023 - Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 23:45-52.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Future of Human Nature.Jürgen Habermas - 2003 - Cambridge, UK: Polity. Edited by Jürgen Habermas.
The Future of Human Nature.Jürgen Habermas - 2003 - Cambridge, UK: Polity. Edited by Jürgen Habermas.
The Case Against Perfection.Michael J. Sandel - 2004 - The Atlantic (April):1–11.
The Future of Human Nature.Jurgen Habermas - 2004 - Philosophy 79 (309):483-486.

View all 20 references / Add more references