Human Enhancement, Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (2):359-378 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
DANHES
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-07-14
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Moral Enhancement, Freedom, and the God Machine.Persson, Ingmar & Savulescu, Julian

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2015-07-14

Total views
1,405 ( #1,795 of 50,241 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
182 ( #2,272 of 50,241 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.