The Social and Ethical Acceptability of NBICs for Purposes of Human Enhancement: Why Does the Debate Remain Mired in Impasse? [Book Review]

NanoEthics 5 (3):295-307 (2011)

Abstract
The emergence and development of convergent technologies for the purpose of improving human performance, including nanotechnology, biotechnology, information sciences, and cognitive science (NBICs), open up new horizons in the debates and moral arguments that must be engaged by philosophers who hope to take seriously the question of the ethical and social acceptability of these technologies. This article advances an analysis of the factors that contribute to confusion and discord on the topic, in order to help in understanding why arguments that form a part of the debate between transhumanism and humanism result in a philosophical and ethical impasse: 1. The lack of clarity that emerges from the fact that any given argument deployed (arguments based on nature and human nature, dignity, the good life) can serve as the basis for both the positive and the negative evaluation of NBICs. 2. The impossibility of providing these arguments with foundations that will enable others to deem them acceptable. 3. The difficulty of applying these same arguments to a specific situation. 4. The ineffectiveness of moral argument in a democratic society. The present effort at communication about the difficulties of the argumentation process is intended as a necessary first step towards developing an interdisciplinary response to those difficulties.
Keywords Debate about transhumanism and humanism  Human enhancement  Philosophical-ethical impasse  Social-ethical acceptance
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11569-011-0133-z
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 41,583
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

In Defense of Posthuman Dignity.Nick Bostrom - 2005 - Bioethics 19 (3):202–214.
Some Pitfalls in the Philosophical Foundations of Nanoethics.Jean-Pierre Dupuy - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (3):237 – 261.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Moral Transhumanism: The Next Step.M. N. Tennison - 2012 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (4):405-416.
Bioconservatism, Bioliberalism, and Repugnance.Rebecca Roache & Steve Clarke - 2009 - Monash Bioethics Review 28 (1):04.1-04.21.
Making Human Better and Making Better Humans.Mairi Levitt & Fiona K. O'Neill - 2010 - Genomics, Society and Policy 6 (1):1-14.
Is Human Enhancement Also a Personal Matter?Vincent Menuz, Thierry Hurlimann & Béatrice Godard - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):161-177.
Thinking Across Species—a Critical Bioethics Approach to Enhancement.Richard Twine - 2007 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (6):509-523.
Human Enhancement.Nick Bostrom & Julian Savulescu (eds.) - 2009 - Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-11-14

Total views
32 ( #255,792 of 2,249,178 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #605,616 of 2,249,178 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature