Bioethics 29 (9):622-630 (2015)

Johann Roduit
University of Zürich
Jan-Christoph Heilinger
Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München
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.
Keywords perfectionism  capability  enhancement  human enhancement  capability approach
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/bioe.12192
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: 69,959
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

An Obligation to Enhance?Anton Vedder - 2019 - Topoi 38 (1):49-52.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Should We Enhance Animals?S. Chan - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (11):678-683.
Moral Perfection and the Demand for Human Enhancement.Adriana Warmbier - forthcoming - Ethics in Progress 2015 (No.1).
A Thomistic Appraisal of Human Enhancement Technologies.Jason T. Eberl - 2014 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (4):289-310.
Is Human Enhancement Also a Personal Matter?Vincent Menuz, Thierry Hurlimann & Béatrice Godard - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):161-177.
Integration of Cognitive and Moral Enhancement.Vojin Rakic - 2012 - Filozofija I Društvo 23 (2):91-103.
The Ethics of Human Enhancement.Alberto Giubilini & Sagar Sanyal - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (4):233-243.
Human Nature and Enhancement.Allen Buchanan - 2009 - Bioethics 23 (3):141-150.


Added to PP index

Total views
103 ( #113,517 of 2,504,809 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #209,949 of 2,504,809 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes