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 language | English (Ireland) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 359-378 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Ethical Theory And Moral Practice |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 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
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver