Graduate studies at Western
Identity in the Information Society 3 (3):423-434 (2010)
|Abstract||In this article, I argue that lawmakers must abandon their previous reluctance to engage with questions of personal identity (PI). While frequently seen as an esoteric subject, of limited interest outside of academic philosophy departments, I attempt to show that, in fact, assumptions about PI—and its durability in the face of certain psychological or genetic changes—underpin many current legal rules. This is most perhaps obviously exemplified with regard to reproductive technologies. Yet the Parfitian challenge to identify a victim of ‘bad’ reproductive choices has been largely overlooked in framing legislative responses to such technologies. Furthermore, I argue, it is not only with regard to emerging technologies that questionable assumptions about PI play a role; legal responses to questions about the attribution of criminal responsibility, and about the treatment of demented or brain-injured people, necessitate a frank engagement with such questions. It may be, however, that a multi-faceted approach to PI, which takes account of genetic, psychological and social factors—will prove a better fit for the myriad needs of the legal system than any sort of ‘unified theory of identity’|
|Keywords||Emerging technology Personal identity Regulation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
L. L. E. Bolt (2007). True to Oneself? Broad and Narrow Ideas on Authenticity in the Enhancement Debate. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (4):285-300.
David DeGrazia (2005). Human Identity and Bioethics. Cambridge University Press.
Simon Beck (2013). Am I My Brother's Keeper? On Personal Identity and Responsibility. South African Journal of Philosophy 32 (1):1-9.
Eric T. Olson (2002). Personal Identity. In Stephen P. Stich & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell.
Thérèse Murphy (ed.) (2009). New Technologies and Human Rights. Oxford University Press.
Trond Åm (2011). Trust in Nanotechnology? On Trust as Analytical Tool in Social Research on Emerging Technologies. Nanoethics 5 (1):15-28.
David Shoemaker (2010). The Insignificance of Personal Identity for Bioethics. Bioethics 24 (9):481-489.
William E. Stempsey (2006). Emerging Medical Technologies and Emerging Conceptions of Health. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (3):227-243.
Janet Malek (2006). Identity, Harm, and the Ethics of Reproductive Technology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (1):83 – 95.
Marya Schechtman (2010). Memory and Identity. Philosophical Studies 153 (1):65-79.
Trond Ã…M. (2011). Trust in Nanotechnology? On Trust as Analytical Tool in Social Research on Emerging Technologies. Nanoethics 5 (1):15-28.
Federica Lucivero, Tsjalling Swierstra & Marianne Boenink (2011). Assessing Expectations: Towards a Toolbox for an Ethics of Emerging Technologies. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 5 (2):129-141.
James Giles (1997). No Self to Be Found: The Search for Personal Identity. University Press of America.
Mark Greene (2009). Choosing Future People: Reproductive Technologies and Identity. In Vardit Ravitsky, Autumn Fiester & Arthur L. Caplan (eds.), The Penn Center Guide to Bioethics. Springer Publishing Company.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads14 ( #90,611 of 739,406 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,406 )
How can I increase my downloads?