Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Human Enhancement, Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility

Research output: Contribution to a Journal (Peer & Non Peer)Articlepeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

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 (i.e. the ability to control and manipulate all aspects of ones agency). 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 such alterations are morally problematic. I try to correct for this flaw before offering a variety of strategies for dealing with the problems raised.
Original languageEnglish (Ireland)
Pages (from-to)359-378
Number of pages20
JournalEthical Theory And Moral Practice
Volume19
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2015

Keywords

  • Compliance burdens
  • Distribution of responsibility
  • Enhancement
  • Giftedness argument
  • Hyperagency
  • Solidarity

Authors (Note for portal: view the doc link for the full list of authors)

  • Authors
  • Danaher, J.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Human Enhancement, Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this