Moral bioenhancement and agential risks: Good and bad outcomes

Bioethics 31 (9):691-696 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In Unfit for the Future, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu argue that our collective existetial predicment is unprecedentedly dangerous due to climate change and terrorism. Given these global risks to human prosperity and survival, Persson and Savulescu argue that we should explore the radical possibility of moral bioenhancement in addition to cognitive enhancement. In this article, I argue that moral bioenhancements could nontrivially exacerbate the threat posed by certain kinds of malicious agents, while reducing the threat of other kinds. This introduces a previously undiscussed complication to Persson and Savulescu's proposal. In the final section, I present a novel argument for why moral bioenhancement should either be compulsory or not be made available to the public at all.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Is Moral Bioenhancement Dangerous?Nicholas Drake - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (1):3-6.
Egalitarianism and Successful Moral Bioenhancement.Alan T. Wilson - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (4):35-36.
Freedom and moral enhancement.Michael J. Selgelid - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (4):215-216.
The Misfortunes of Moral Enhancement.Marco Antonio Azevedo - 2016 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 41 (5):461-479.
Egalitarianism and Moral Bioenhancement.Robert Sparrow - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (4):20-28.
Voluntary moral enhancement and the survival-at-any-cost bias.Vojin Rakić - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (4):246-250.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-09-18

Downloads
39 (#388,687)

6 months
5 (#544,079)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?