David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
NanoEthics 2 (3):305-316 (2008)
Nanotechnologies that have been linked to the possibility of enhancing cognitive capabilities of human beings might also be deployed to reduce or eliminate such capabilities in non-human vertebrate animals. A surprisingly large literature on the ethics of such disenhancement has been developed in response to the suggestion that it would be an ethically defensible response to animal suffering both in medical experimentation and in industrial livestock production. However, review of this literature illustrates the difficulty of formulating a coherent ethical debate. Well structured arguments for disenhancement can be made on the basis of mainstream views on the basis of ethical obligations to animals, but these arguments have not been persuasive against the moral intuition that disenhancements are unethical. At the same time, attempts to ground these intuitions in a coherent philosophical doctrine have been plagued by logical fallacies and question begging assertions. As such, the debate over animal disenhancement forecasts an enduring conundrum with respect to the core question of transforming the nature of sentient beings, and this conundrum is logically independent of claims that relate either to the distinctive of human beings or to issues deriving from the emphasis on enhancement.
|Keywords||Ethics Biotechnology Livestock Animal welfare Animal rights Intuition Behavior Perfectionism|
|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
Arianna Ferrari (2012). Animal Disenhancement for Animal Welfare: The Apparent Philosophical Conundrums and the Real Exploitation of Animals. A Response to Thompson and Palmer. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 6 (1):65-76.
Clare Palmer (2011). Animal Disenhancement and the Non-Identity Problem: A Response to Thompson. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 5 (1):43-48.
T. J. Kasperbauer (2013). Nussbaum and the Capacities of Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (5):977-997.
John Weckert (2012). Symposium on Animal Disenhancement: Introduction. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 6 (1):39-40.
Adam Henschke (2012). Making Sense of Animal Disenhancement. NanoEthics 6 (1):55-64.
Similar books and articles
Jean-Pierre Béland, Johane Patenaude, Georges Legault, Patrick Boissy & Monelle Parent (2011). The Social and Ethical Acceptability of NBICs for Purposes of Human Enhancement: Why Does the Debate Remain Mired in Impasse? [REVIEW] NanoEthics 5 (3):295-307.
Thomas Douglas (2013). Human Enhancement and Supra-Personal Moral Status. Philosophical Studies 162 (3):473-497.
Jeff McMahan (2005). “Our Fellow Creatures”. Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):353 - 380.
Vincent Menuz, Thierry Hurlimann & Béatrice Godard (2013). Is Human Enhancement Also a Personal Matter? Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):161-177.
Paola Cavalieri (2001). The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford University Press.
Patrick Lin & Fritz Allhoff (2008). Untangling the Debate: The Ethics of Human Enhancement. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 2 (3):251-264.
Allen Buchanan (2009). Human Nature and Enhancement. Bioethics 23 (3):141-150.
Patrick Lin & Fritz Allhoff (2006). Nanoethics and Human Enhancement: A Critical Evaluation of Recent Arguments. Nanotechnology Perceptions 2:47-52.
Nicole Hassoun (2008). Nanotechnology, Enhancement, and Human Nature. NanoEthics 2 (3):289-304.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads65 ( #35,579 of 1,700,224 )
Recent downloads (6 months)29 ( #21,404 of 1,700,224 )
How can I increase my downloads?