Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu argue that non-traditional forms of cognitive enhancement (those involving genetic engineering or pharmaceuticals) present a serious threat to humanity, since the fruits of such enhancement, accelerated scientific progress, will give the morally corrupt minority of humanity new and more effective ways to cause great harm. And yet it is scientific progress, accelerated by non-traditional cognitive enhancement, which could allow us to dramatically morally enhance human beings, thereby eliminating, or at least reducing, the threat from the morally corrupt minority. I argue that this apparently intractable dilemma is less difficult to resolve than Persson and Savulescu suppose. Their analysis of non-traditional cognitive enhancement overstates the risks and undervalues the benefits that such enhancement might provide. Once the benefits are better described, it is clear that non-traditional cognitive enhancement could be the means of our survival, not of our destruction.
- Cognitive enhancement
- moral enhancement
- scientific progress
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.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- ‘My child will never initiate Ultimate Harm’: an argument against moral enhancement
- Technological moral enhancement or traditional moral progress? Why not both?
- Voluntary moral enhancement and the survival-at-any-cost bias
- Amoral enhancement
- Reply to commentators on Unfit for the Future
- Neuroenhancing public health
- 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
- Putting a price on empathy: against incentivising moral enhancement
- Are we unfit for the future?