Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 22 (3):397-405 (2019)

This article presents a critical analysis of the views of Michael Sandel on human enhancement in his book The Case Against Perfection. Sandel argues that the use of biotechnologies for human enhancement is driven by a will to mastery or hybris, leading to an ‘explosion of responsibility’ and a disappearance of solidarity. I argue that Sandel is using a traditional concept of solidarity which leaves little room for individual differences and which is difficult to reconcile with the modern trend towards individual autonomy and cultural heterogeneity. With reference to the sociology of Giddens, I argue that the ‘explosion of responsibility’ can be considered an expression of the insecurity in modern society and the need for reflexivity in personal and social life. I argue that the need for reflexivity is a driving social and cultural force behind the interest in human enhancement, and that this trend can go together with a commitment to take care of the needs of others. I agree with Sandel that there is a risk that human enhancement may develop into ‘hybris’, particularly when enhancement is driven by scientism and a naturalist reduction of human values to neurological processes. Enhancement based on scientism will threaten solidarity defined by Honneth as an interactive relationship aimed at the mutual recognition of individual identities in relation to a shared value horizon. I will call for a reflective approach in which human enhancement technologies are explored in the context of a ‘system of reference’. Such a reflective approach will help to protect against the hybris of scientism and to maintain solidarity with vulnerable groups.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11019-018-09880-5
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 55,899
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

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Enhancement and Human Nature: The Case of Sandel.T. Lewens - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (6):354-356.
Is Human Enhancement a Threat to Solidarity?Ruud ter Meulen - 2017 - Acta Philosophica 26 (2):307-322.
Mastery Without Mystery: Why There is No Promethean Sin in Enhancement.Guy Kahane - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):355-368.
Is There a Problem with Enhancement?Frances M. Kamm - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (3):5 – 14.
Genetic Enhancement and Moral Attitudes Toward the Given.Terrance Mcconnell - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):369-380.
Human Enhancement, Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility.John Danaher - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (2):359-378.
Human Enhancement and the Giftedness of Life.Michael Hauskeller - 2011 - Philosophical Papers 40 (1):55-79.
Review of The Case Against Perfection. [REVIEW]Keith Abney - 2009 - Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 2 (3).
Review of The Case Against Perfection. [REVIEW]Keith Abney - 2008 - Law and Ethics of Human Rights 2 (3).


Added to PP index

Total views
13 ( #711,329 of 2,402,067 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #361,944 of 2,402,067 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes