Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Ingmar Persson challenges1 an argument in my book Humanity's End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement2 that harms predictably suffered by unenhanced humans justify banning radical enhancement. Here I understand radical enhancement as producing beings with mental and physical capacities that greatly exceed those of the most capable current human. I called these results of radical enhancement posthumans, though I think that Persson may be right that this is not the most felicitous name for them.
The focus of my argument was the possible improvement of moral standing brought by the radical enhancement of human cognitive and affective capacities. This would give stronger moral entitlements to benefits and stronger moral protections against harms. My opposition to varieties of enhancement that have this effect is grounded in significant harms for unenhanced humans that predictably result from a loss in relative moral standing. Significant benefits for the radically enhanced won't morally compensate for the victimisation of the unenhanced worst off.
Persson criticises a more moderate presentation of my conclusion than the one that I favour. He presents me as arguing that …
Footnotes
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Why is it possible to enhance moral status and why doing so is wrong?
- Moral enhancement, freedom, and what we (should) value in moral behaviour
- Transhumanism, medical technology and slippery slopes
- Devoured by our own children: the possibility and peril of moral status enhancement
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- Could it be permissible to prevent the existence of morally enhanced people?
- Cursed lamp: the problem of spontaneous abortion
- The biomedical enhancement of moral status
- Technological moral enhancement or traditional moral progress? Why not both?
- The ethics of and the appropriate legislation concerning killing people and letting them die: a response to Merkel