David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (2):76-77 (2013)
Nicholas Agar argues that it is possible, and even likely, that radically enhanced human beings will turn out to be ‘post-persons’, that is, beings with a moral status higher than that of mere persons such as us.1 This would mean that they will be morally justified in sacrificing our lives and well-being not merely in cases of emergency, but also in cases of ‘supreme opportunities’ , that is, whenever such a sacrifice leads to ‘significant benefits for post-persons’. For this reason, Agar believes, it would be morally wrong to allow any cognitive enhancement of people that might entail the risk of moral status enhancement.However, neither are there sufficient grounds to expect radically enhanced human beings to have a higher moral status than unenhanced human beings, nor would it, even if they did, be morally wrong to bring about their existence. We use moral status ascriptions mostly as a convenient shorthand to indicate a difference in capacities that strikes us as morally relevant. Rocks have zero moral status because they cannot feel or think, so we cannot hurt or kill them. Whatever we do to them, it does not affect them. Animals, on the other hand, …
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David DeGrazia (2008). Moral Status as a Matter of Degree? Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):181-198.
D. DeGrazia (2012). Genetic Enhancement, Post-Persons and Moral Status: A Reply to Buchanan. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (3):135-139.
Christopher Wareham (2011). On the Moral Equality of Artificial Agents. International Journal of Technoethics 2 (1):35-42.
D. DeGrazia (2012). Genetic Enhancement, Post-Persons, and Moral Status: Author Reply to Commentaries. Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (3):145-147.
Richard Brook (2002). Mary Anne Warren, Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things:Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things. Ethics 112 (3):644-646.
Bart Gruzalski (2000). Mary Anne Warren, Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things:Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things. Ethics 110 (3):645-649.
Richard Joyce, Moral Status. Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things, by Mary Anne Warren (Oxford University Press, 1997).
Elizabeth Harman (2003). The Potentiality Problem. Philosophical Studies 114 (1-2):173 - 198.
Christopher McMahon (1995). The Ontological and Moral Status of Organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly 5 (3):541-554.
Benjamin Sachs (2011). The Status of Moral Status. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):87-104.
Lisa Bortolotti (2007). Disputes Over Moral Status: Philosophy and Science in the Future of Bioethics. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 15 (2):153-8.
Julie Tannenbaum & Agnieszka Jaworska (2013). The Grounds of Moral Status. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:0-0.
Martin Peterson (2010). Can Consequentialists Honour the Special Moral Status of Persons? Utilitas 22 (4):434-446.
Elizabeth Harman (2007). Sacred Mountains and Beloved Fetuses: Can Loving or Worshipping Something Give It Moral Status? Philosophical Studies 133 (1):55 - 81.
R. E. Ewin (1991). The Moral Status of the Corporation. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (10):749 - 756.
Added to index2012-10-01
Total downloads8 ( #195,991 of 1,682,537 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #78,882 of 1,682,537 )
How can I increase my downloads?