Neuroethics 4 (2):119-128 (2011)
Some libertarians tend to advocate the wide availability of cognition-enhancing drugs beyond their current prescription-only status. They suggest that certain kinds of drugs can be a component of a prudential conception of the ‘good life’—they enhance our opportunities and preferences; and therefore, if a person freely chooses to use them, then there is no justification for the kind of prejudicial, authoritative restrictions that are currently deployed in public policy. In particular, this libertarian idea signifies that if enhancements are a prudential ‘good’ for the user, then this can also be construed as a moral good for all rational agents. If this argument is successful, there can be no substantial distinction between the categorical benefits of enhancement, and what is labeled as an enhancement technology. In this paper, I argue that the exclusivity of egotistical choice, and an uncritical deployment of enhancement as a prudential good, underplays the role of a social and political community when creating a procedurally just and effective public policy. Principally, the argument is devoid of any ethical system to permit the external—and therefore public–appreciation of the social context of moral decisions. In effect, libertarian arguments of this sort must disregard any ideas of public ethics, because the liberty to use whatever means available to gain a socio-economic advantage actually extinguishes any professed legitimation strategy. Escaping the procedural aspects of public policy, which are considered integral to authoritative coherence, results in the erosion of any moral obligations. Thus, in a libertarian society, disenfranchised individuals—such as those harmed through addiction—are the unlucky or superfluous product of a liberal and ‘progressive’ society
|Keywords||Libertarianism Cognition-enhancing drugs Public policy Legitimation Human rights Authoritative regulation Addiction|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People.John Harris - 2007 - Princeton University Press.
Towards Responsible Use of Cognitive-Enhancing Drugs by the Healthy.Henry Greely, Barbara Sahakian, John Harris, Ronald Kessler, Gazzaniga C., Campbell Michael, Farah Philip & J. Martha - 2008 - Philosophical Explorations 456 (7223):702--705.
Citations of this work BETA
Prohibition or Coffee Shops: Regulation of Amphetamine and Methylphenidate for Enhancement Use by Healthy Adults.Veljko Dubljević - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (7):23-33.
Cognitive Enhancement, Rational Choice and Justification.Veljko Dubljević - 2013 - Neuroethics 6 (1):179-187.
Hearing Beyond the Normal Enabled by Therapeutic Devices: The Role of the Recipient and the Hearing Profession.Gregor Wolbring - 2013 - Neuroethics 6 (3):607-616.
Exploring Some Challenges of the Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Discourse: Users and Policy Recommendations.Toni Pustovrh & Franc Mali - 2014 - Neuroethics 7 (2):137-158.
Similar books and articles
Reefer Madness: Cannabis, the Individual, and Public Policy.Tuomas E. Tahko - 2010 - In Dale Jaquette (ed.), Cannabis and Philosophy: What Were We Just Talking About? Wiley-Blackwell.
State Neutrality and the Ethics of Human Enhancement Technologies.John Basl - 2010 - AJOB 1 (2):41-48.
Cognitive Enhancement, Lifestyle Choice or Misuse of Prescription Drugs?Eric Racine & Cynthia Forlini - 2010 - Neuroethics 3 (1):1-4.
Cognitive Enhancement, Cheating, and Accomplishment.Rob Goodman - 2010 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (2):pp. 145-160.
Working While Under the Influence of Performance-Enhancing Drugs: Is One “More Responsible”?Frederic Gilbert - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 2 (3):57-59.
Can Successful Mood Enhancement Make Us Less Happy?Bengt Brülde - 2007 - Philosophica 79:39-56.
Added to index2010-02-27
Total downloads79 ( #64,459 of 2,153,861 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #40,325 of 2,153,861 )
How can I increase my downloads?