Human Enhancement, Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (2):359-378 (2016)
Authors
John Danaher
University College, Galway
Abstract
This paper tries to clarify, strengthen and respond to two prominent objections to the development and use of human enhancement technologies. Both objections express concerns about the link between enhancement and the drive for hyperagency. The first derives from the work of Sandel and Hauskeller—and is concerned with the negative impact of hyperagency on social solidarity. In responding to their objection, I argue that although social solidarity is valuable, there is a danger in overestimating its value and in neglecting some obvious ways in which the enhancement project can be planned so as to avoid its degradation. The second objection, though common to several writers, has been most directly asserted by Saskia Nagel, and is concerned with the impact of hyperagency on the burden and distribution of responsibility. Though this is an intriguing objection, I argue that not enough has been done to explain why this is morally problematic. I try to correct for this flaw before offering a variety of strategies for dealing with the problems raised
Keywords Enhancement  Hyperagency  Giftedness argument  Solidarity  Distribution of responsibility  Compliance burdens
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10677-015-9624-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

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

The Case Against Perfection.Michael Sandel - 2004 - The Atlantic (April):1–11.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Human Enhancement and the Giftedness of Life.Michael Hauskeller - 2011 - Philosophical Papers 40 (1):55-79.
Genetic Enhancement and Moral Attitudes Toward the Given.Terrance Mcconnell - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):369-380.
Mastery Without Mystery: Why There is No Promethean Sin in Enhancement.Guy Kahane - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):355-368.
The Role of Solidarity in Social Responsibility for Health.Massimo Reichlin - 2011 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14 (4):365-370.
Enhancement and Human Nature: The Case of Sandel.T. Lewens - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (6):354-356.
Is There a Problem with Enhancement?Frances M. Kamm - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (3):5 – 14.
Moral Enhancement.Thomas Douglas - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3):228-245.
Enhancement in Sport, and Enhancement Outside Sport.Thomas Douglas - 2007 - Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 1 (1).

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-07-14

Total downloads
691 ( #3,067 of 2,287,756 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
193 ( #1,357 of 2,287,756 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature