If we assume that “enhancement” names all efforts to boost human mental and physical capacities beyond the normal upper range found in our species, then enhancement covers such a broad range of interventions that it becomes implausible to think that there is any generic ethical case to be made either for or against it. Michael Sandel has recently made such a generic case, which focuses on the importance of respecting the “giftedness” of human nature. Sandel succeeds in diagnosing an important worry we may have about the use of some enhancements by some parents, but his arguments are better understood as opposing “procrustean parenting” rather than enhancement in general.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Funding: The Isaac Newton Trust and the Leverhulme Trust.
Competing interests: None.
Provenance and Peer review: Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Good parents would not fulfil their obligation to genetically enhance their unborn children
- ‘My child will never initiate Ultimate Harm’: an argument against moral enhancement
- Reproductive technologies, risk, enhancement and the value of genetic relatedness
- A Nietzschean critique of liberal eugenics
- Getting beyond the welfare of the child in assisted reproduction
- Possible people, complaints, and the distinction between genetic planning and genetic engineering
- Better to hesitate at the threshold of compulsion: PKU testing and the concept of family autonomy in Eire
- Bioethics: why philosophy is essential for progress
- Sexism and human enhancement
- American biofutures: ideology and utopia in the Fukuyama/Stock debate