Challenges of Transhumanism for Virtue Ethics

2.1 Trans- and Post-humanism

Today, transhumanism is developing as a complex technical-scientific, philosophical, socio-economic, political and cultural trend. According to Róbert Sarka: “It is a philosophical futuristic vision that deals, among other things, with the idea of transforming the human body using modern technology. The goal is the integration of the artificial and the organic. The vision is of a robotic human, a homobot. According to the adherents of transhumanism, with the help of advanced technologies it will be possible to eliminate aging and expand the intelligence, physical and psychological capabilities of man.” (Sarka, 2009, p. 190). Transhumanism is supposed to represent a transitional period to the so-called posthuman age. Representatives of posthumanism as a complex futuristic philosophical-scientific-technical direction assume that one day there will be beings on earth whose basic abilities will so radically exceed those of humans that they cannot be considered, according to established norms, to be uniquely human, which is why they are already assigning them the label of posthuman (Bolter, 2016).

Philosophically, this is a rather materialist and mechanistic understanding of the world that uses a (de)constructivist mode of argumentation, where they do not directly deny metaphysical, spiritual and religious perspectives, but subordinate them to the chosen basic element (functional quality) and to the prevailing functionalist approach, as will be discussed below. At the same time, transhumanists are also open to the living world religions because they see in their doctrines certain overlaps with their ideas and consider them as their predecessors because of their transcending tendency of openness to the immortal, the eternal, the divine within the cultural flourishing of humanity (Levchuk, 2019, pp. 75–77; Ahamed et al., 2019, pp. 701–714).

Patrick D. Hopkins defined four elements of a moral vision for transhumanism: 1. “[…] the first element of a transhumanist moral vision is that the effort to address the human condition requires that we change the physical facts that in part generate the human condition. Curing the human condition requires altering the “human” part of the equation”; 2. “the second element of a reflective transhumanist moral vision is to permit human bodies and brains to catch up with the human mind’s projects, to fulfill the human desire for its own idealized construction and pursuits”; 3. “the third element of a reflective transhumanist moral vision is that our very psyches themselves, our very moral natures, are not finished projects but can be altered as well. As we are, we are not suited to be as good as we can be. Our characters and wills themselves, as age-old religions and philosophies have taught, are to be transformed into something better”; 4. “the fourth element of a reflective transhumanist moral vision is to seek Truth and pursue the Good – using technology as a tool to change ourselves in such ways that we can learn more, see more, experience more, and understand more, including even more radical ways to change ourselves to seek truth and pursue the good” (Hopkins, 2008, pp. 3–7).

From a socio-economic point of view, transhumanism partly resembles socialism as a transitional system on the way to communism. According to Marxist-Leninist ideology, socialism is an establishment in which there is common ownership of the means of production, the working class rules, and everyone receives (“justly”) according to his or her merits. Communists envisage a classless society in which the common ownership of the means of production is maintained and everyone receives equally according to his needs (the so-called earthly paradise of communist utilitarianism). In the so-called post-human era, the “just” leadership of a classless society would be taken over by cybernetically controlled machines (e.g. robots, artificial intelligences, etc.) that could distribute the goods and meet the needs of the members of the communities better, more perfectly, and more impartially than humans have been able to do so far as stated later (Lee, 2019a, pp. 849–863). For these and other reasons, Francis Fukuyma identified transhumanism as the most dangerous idea today, as it threatens the established democratic order in society (Fukuyma, 2004). More recently, Paul Cullen has described transhumanism as an anti-humanism that carries many dangers (Cullen, 2022).

According to Emil Višňovský, transhumanism, which embraces the idea of posthumanism, is superhumanism “in the sense of the transcendence and perfection of man beyond his natural or biological limits and possibilities. […] Although transhumanists may agree with humanists […] that man is a being striving for perfection and capable of enhancement, it is the question of the character or nature of man on which they diverge. If, for humanists, man as we know him, i.e. as a natural-cultural being, is the highest value, then they will want to preserve this value. Transhumanists either have a different highest value, i.e. they conceive of man as a different, artificial being, or they have a different concept of human nature; one that can and must be “overcome,” transcended.” (Višňovský, 2019, pp. 176–177) For these reasons, it is necessary to specify and evaluate selected moral elements of trans- and post-humanism.

2.2 Moral Subject

Trans- and post-humanists consider the following to be sentient entities (animate or inanimate): humans (even genetically modified), cybernetic organisms, artificial/digital intelligences, “intellectually” enhanced plants and animals, and other intellectually living creatures (e.g. extraterrestrials). In 2014, American columnist Zoltan Istvan Gyurko founded the U.S. Transhumanist Party, which promotes social recognition of rights for non-living sentient entities (Lee, 2019b, pp. 18–19; Stolyarov II, 2019). In 2017, Saudi Arabia – the first country in the world – conferred citizenship on a robot with the likeness of a woman. Its developer is robot designer Davide Hanson and he named it Sofia. The robot Sofia is also programmed to make emotional expressions (Stone, 2017). A sentient entity should be understood as an entity (thing) that is capable of perception, awareness, and experience of itself and others. The quality of this ability depends on the intelligence assigned to it – sentient intelligence – which is held by the respective entities (Kelley, 2019; Morris, 2018a,b; Thurzo, 2021). For example, the Dutch futurist Amanda Stoel speaks of “degrees of personhood” in the sentient entities. These degrees would be measured on the basis of a scale that takes into account all the capacities and attributes possessed by an entity that together constitute personhood (e.g. self-awareness, self-determination, autonomous decision-making, intentionality, etc.). Consequently, rights would be assigned to these entities according to the degree of personhood that is measured in them (Stoel, 2019, pp. 628–629). The ability to perceive and feel presupposes a functional basis in these entities: either organic (physiological, related to the activity of the nervous system) or also artificial (techno-technological).

This understanding of the (moral) subject is possible because dignity is understood as an accident – a functional, measurable, removable, or changeable (improved or diminished) quality. This meaning of dignity as a quality has been advanced by Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom (Bostrom, 2008).^[1] Similarly, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu also applied the principle of self-awareness to define a person who would not be related to the biological species Homo sapiens (Person & Savulescu, 2010). According to the German thinker Stefan L. Sorgner, man has always been a cybernetic organism (Sorgner, 2022). The Israeli posthumanist Yuval N. Harari considers humans as a surpassed organic algorithm and conceives their life as data processing (Harari, 2019, loc. 80–93, 351, 358, 364, 366).

These transhumanist views echo the Enlightenment empirical definition of the person by John Locke (1632–1704), who understood the person as an entity (thing) that psychologically knows itself. Insofar as it experiences itself, it possesses itself and can freely (autonomously) dispose of itself (Locke, 1690, p. 103; Locke, 2007, pp. 84, 115). At the end of the last century, Australian thinker Peter Singer applied this definition of person to those living animals that are capable of psychological self-awareness and emotional interaction. At the same time, Singer limited the application of the concept of person to those human subjects who do not have these capacities (Singer, 1994, pp. 180–183, 205–206; 1993, pp. 86–87, 190–191, 197). At the beginning of our millennium, Jeff McMahan applied this understanding of the person to justify his ethics of killing human life in its beginning and at its end (McMahan, 2002, pp. 6–7, 444, 67, 80–87, 215, 229, 347–361, 488).

This is the so-called functionalist (not substantivist) interpretation of the person, which represents a radical change in the understanding of the person and promotes deconstructivism. Its representatives seek to effectively deconstruct “old” ideas and replace them with “new” relativistic constructs whose meaning is mutable (fluid) according to the chosen need (Rajský, 2021, pp. 108–109; Rajský, 2007, p. 9). This is truly a revolution – not only theoretical, but also practical (social) (Harari, 2019, loc. 252), the aim of which is the deification of humanity by technical-technological tools. According to Harari, only a person empowered with “divine” abilities can survive (Harari, 2019, loc. 25). This vision echoes the Nietzschean idea of the superman (Nietzsche, 2013, pp. 11, 25–26) and resonates the Darwinian-inspired idea of evolutionary selection (Darwin, 1996) and Spencerʼs idea of the survival of the fittest, i.e. enhanced being (Spencer, 1864).^[2]

2.3 Moral Virtues, Bio-happiness and Peace

In the spirit of Enlightenment values, American sociologist James J. Hughes, co-founder and director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies at the University of Massachusetts (Boston, USA), developed the concept of democratic transhumanism. This will be followed by a transhumanist democracy, whose members will include cyborgs (Hughes, 2004, pp. 187–240; Hughes, 2002). According to Hughes, we have an ethical obligation to enhance ourselves (genetically, bio-chemically, cybernetically) in order to live longer, better and wiser through the advances of science and democracy (Hughes, 2004, pp. 3–42). Hughes understands virtues as those social competencies that are to ensure a happy life (bio-happiness) in the sense of eudaimonia (i.e. a dynamic focus on the good life as a whole, not just a kind of occasional pleasure) (Hughes, 2004, pp. 43–52). Hughes defines seven human/moral virtues: temperance, perseverance, compassion (Hughes, 2004, pp. 241–257), justice, mindfulness, intelligence and transcendence (Hughes, 2011). These virtues ensure that the use of enhancing technologies is safe, accessible to all, and respects the rights of individuals to self-control (including of their bodies) (Hughes, 2004, pp. 11–22; Hughes, 2011). Hughes further develops these ideas in a Buddhist sense. Under his leadership, The Cyborg Buddha Project (CBP) was established, where participants seek to link neurosciences, technologies, transhumanism and Buddhism on a way to liberate the human ‘self’ from suffering to a so-called ‘posthuman’ state (Evans, 2014; Hughes, 2007; Ross, 2019, pp. 141–161).

Inessa Lee, a member of the California Transhumanist Party (Los Angeles, USA), goes even further. In the line of previous transhumanist manifestos (Esfandiary, 1973; Haraway, 1985; Vita-More, 1983, 1998, 2008, 2020), she eclectically and unjustifiably combines the ideas of Marxism and (deistically understood) Christianity in the conception of a transhumanist egalitarian socio-economic theory that aims at a new paradise on earth in this post-Christian era. This conception is expressed by the following Leeʼs equation: (science + technology + economics) × faith = egalitarianism (Lee, 2019a, p. 859). Lee assumes that new technologies will put an end to social stratification through the equal redistribution of resources in an era of technological singularity. According to her, the current social stratification is the result of unequal distribution of resources on the planet. It is the main cause of human suffering, disorder and wars. In order to eradicate poverty and achieve world peace, material wealth and resources should be distributed equally. New technologies should be used to ensure that the world is run by artificial intelligence, thereby ending socio-economic inequality, diseases and suffering. This new egalitarianism is to represent the highest stage of capitalism’s development within the framework of a progressive transhumanist (non-violent and inevitable) revolution. Lee therefore proclaimed the Equalism Manifesto and Equalismʼs 10 Commandments.

The Equalism Manifesto includes the following seven socio-economic strategies: 1. State-owned means of production, lands and enterprises; abolition of inherited properties, including intellectual ones (cf. Leviticus 25:23; Job 41:11). 2. Elimination of human exploitation by full automation of labor. 3. Active use of Digital Democracy to expand and improve democratic practice. 4. Replacing governments with supercomputers until Godʼs Kingdom is restablished during the Second coming of Christ (cf. Apocalypse 19:16). 5. Establishing centrally planned economy managed by Artificial Intelligence. 6. Eliminating money with the help of advanced technology. 7. Free healthcare and education for all people (Lee, 2019a, pp. 854–857).

In the Equalismʼs 10 Commandments, Lee states the following moral imperatives: 1. Let there be equality between you as you are equal before God (cf. Exodus 16:18, 2 Corinthians 8:14). 2. Love God with all your heart as you are created in His image (cf. Matthew 22:37). 3. Love and accept thyself and your neighbor the way God created you (cf. Mark 12.31). 4. Treat each other as brothers and sisters for you are all Godʼs children (cf. Hebrews 13:1). 5. Honor your family, for without them you are like a rootless tree (cf. Proverbs 11:29). 6. Preserve nature as God created it before breathing life into you (cf. Genesis 1:26). 7. Keep your mind pure, as impure thoughts make your body uncean (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:11). 8. Do not harm your neighborʼs body or soul as they are created by God (cf. Romans 13:9). 9. Forgive each other as God is forgiveness (cf. Colossians 3:13). 10. Seek for true love, not for material possessions (cf. 1 Peter 4:8). According to Lee, this is how people are supposed to build a new world paradise^[3] because of true love in the name of the Triune God. It is a Christian-Communist cyberocracy (Lee, 2019a, pp. 860–862).