Monash Bioethics Review 32 (3-4):205-216 (2014)

Authors
Jan-Christoph Heilinger
Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München
Johann Roduit
University of Zürich
Abstract
Is it necessary to have an ideal of perfection in mind to identify and evaluate true biotechnological human “enhancements”, or can one do without? To answer this question we suggest employing the distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory, found in the debate in political philosophy about theories of justice: the distinctive views about whether one needs an idea of a perfectly just society or not when it comes to assessing the current situation and recommending steps to increase justice. In this paper we argue that evaluating human enhancements from a non-ideal perspective has some serious shortcomings, which can be avoided when endorsing an ideal approach. Our argument starts from a definition of human enhancement as improvement, which can be understood in two ways. The first approach is backward-looking and assesses improvements with regard to a status quo ante. The second, a forward-looking approach, evaluates improvements with regard to their proximity to a goal or according to an ideal. After outlining the limitations of an exclusively backward-looking view, we answer possible objections against a forward-looking view. Ultimately, we argue that the human enhancement debate would lack some important moral insights if a forward-looking view of improvement is not taken into consideration.
Keywords Human enhancement   Ideal theory   Non-ideal theory   Perfection   Biomedical enhancements
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s40592-015-0027-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,192
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Idea of Justice.Amartya Kumar Sen - 2009 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Ideal Vs. Non‐Ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map.Laura Valentini - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (9):654-664.
Ideal and Nonideal Theory.A. John Simmons - 2010 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (1):5-36.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

One Danger of Biomedical Enhancements.Alex Rajczi - 2008 - Bioethics 22 (6):328–336.
Genetic Enhancements and Expectations.K. Sorensen - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (7):433-435.
Enhancement and the Ethics of Development.Allen Buchanan - 2008 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (1):pp. 1-34.
Love Troubles: Human Attachment and Biomedical Enhancements.Sven Nyholm - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2):190-202.
Jan-Christoph Heilinger: Anthropologie und Ethik des Enhancements.Werner Moskopp - 2011 - Philosophischer Literaturanzeiger 64 (4):355.
In Defense of Posthuman Dignity.Nick Bostrom - 2005 - Bioethics 19 (3):202–214.
Ideals and Values in Law: A Comment on 'The Importance of Ideals'.R. Cotterrell - 2004 - Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 3:288-298.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-01-24

Total views
52 ( #218,193 of 2,507,393 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,263 of 2,507,393 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes