scholarly journals Moral Perfection and the Demand for Human Enhancement

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Warmbier
Keyword(s):  
Human Enhancement ◽  
Moral Perfection

scholarly journals Moral Perfection and the Demand for Human Enhancement

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Warmbier
Keyword(s):  
Human Enhancement ◽  
Moral Enhancement ◽  
Biological Factor ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Crucial Issue ◽  
Moral Perfection ◽  
Conditions Of Possibility ◽  
Genetic Interventions ◽  
Moral Choices

In this article I discuss one of the most significant areas of bioethical interest, which is the problem of moral enhancement. Since I claim that the crucial issue in the current debate on human bioenhancement is the problem of agency, I bring out and examine the conditions of possibility of selfunderstanding, acting subjects attributing responsible authorship for their actions to themselves. I shall argue that the very idea of moral enhancement, properly understood, fails to justify the claims that enhancing the “biological” factor that plays a part in the process of making moral choices, whether through biomedical or genetic interventions, will actually increase the probability of having “morally better future motives”.

C. S. Lewis & John Hick on Theodicy: Superficially Similar but Significantly Different

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-28
Author(s):  
Brian M. Williams
Keyword(s):  
John Hick ◽  
Broad Category ◽  
Gratuitous Evil ◽  
Moral Perfection ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Greater Good

In the April 2014 edition of The Journal of Inklings Studies, Mark S. M. Scott compared the theodicies of C. S. Lewis and John Hick, concluding that there are ‘significant structural and substantive affinities’ between the two. In my essay, I too analyze these theodicies but arrive at a different conclusion. I argue two points: First, I argue that Lewis’ and Hick’s theodicies bear merely superficial similarities. Second, and more importantly, I argue that they stand in significant opposition to one another at fundamental points. The purpose of this essay is to set Lewis’ views on suffering apart from Hick’s and to suggest that, in the end, perhaps Lewis’ theodicy should not be included in the broad category of ‘greater-good’ theodicies, and would therefore be immune to attacks leveled against Hick’s theodicy as well as the various attacks leveled against the greater-good approach in general. For those who reject the greater-good approach and who hold that gratuitous evil does not count against God’s moral perfection, Lewis’ theodicy could serve as a helpful starting point from which one could develop more thoroughly a non-greater-good theodicy.

Doctors Playing Gods? The Legal Challenges in Regulating the Experimental Stage of Cybernetic Human Enhancement

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Thibaut Moulin
Keyword(s):  
New Technologies ◽  
Human Enhancement ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Medical Progress ◽  
Unique Nature ◽  
The Military

The emergence of new technologies might challenge our assumptions about biomedical research: medical progress may not only cure but enhance human capacities. In particular, the emergence of brain-machine interfaces will admittedly allow disabled people to move or communicate again, but also has various military applications, such as remote control of drones and avatars. Although there is no express legal framework pertaining to the experimental phase of human enhancement techniques, they are actually constrained by international law. According to international humanitarian law, civilians and prisoners of war may be subjected to experiments only when required by their state of health or for medical treatment. According to international human rights law, experimentations are permissible when they meet two conditions: (i) free consent, and (ii) proportionality (that is, the adequacy of risk and benefit). In light of these conditions, this article assesses the situations in which experimentation involving brain-computer interfaces would be lawful. It also gives specific attention to those experimentations carried out on members of the armed forces. In fact, owing to the military hierarchy and the unique nature of its mission (to protect national security at the risk of their own lives), it is necessary to determine how the military may comply with this legal framework.

Biotechnoscience and Boundaries of Human Enhancement

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-39
Author(s):  
Elena Grebenschikova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Enhancement
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document