Article info
PDFNeuroethics
Response
Should moral bioenhancement be compulsory? Reply to Vojin Rakic
- Correspondence to Professor Julian Savulescu, Faculty of Philosophy, The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Suite 8, Littlegate House,Oxford OX1 1PT, UK; julian.savulescu{at}philosophy.ox.ac.uk
Citation
Should moral bioenhancement be compulsory? Reply to Vojin Rakic
Publication history
- Received February 11, 2013
- Accepted February 26, 2013
- First published March 22, 2013.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- Moral enhancement, freedom, and what we (should) value in moral behaviour
- Frequently overlooked realistic moral bioenhancement interventions
- Moral bioenhancement, freedom and reasoning
- Is moral bioenhancement dangerous?
- Too good for this world: moral bioenhancement and the ethics of making moral misfits
- Voluntary moral enhancement and the survival-at-any-cost bias
- Moral bioenhancement is dangerous
- Taking liberties with free fall
- Reply to commentators on Unfit for the Future
- A question about defining moral bioenhancement