Article info
PDFCommentary
Why we can't really say what post-persons are
- Correspondence to Dr Nicholas Agar, Victoria University of Wellington, Philosophy Program, Wellington, New Zealand; nicholas.agar{at}vuw.ac.nz
Citation
Why we can't really say what post-persons are
Publication history
- Received September 17, 2011
- Accepted September 21, 2011
- First published December 14, 2011.
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
© 2012, 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
- Why is it possible to enhance moral status and why doing so is wrong?
- Reply to commentators on Unfit for the Future
- ‘My child will never initiate Ultimate Harm’: an argument against moral enhancement
- Still unconvinced, but still tentative: a reply to DeGrazia
- Still afraid of needy post-persons
- Technological moral enhancement or traditional moral progress? Why not both?
- Genetic enhancement, post-persons and moral status: a reply to Buchanan
- Too good for this world: moral bioenhancement and the ethics of making moral misfits
- Highlights from this issue
- Putting a price on empathy: against incentivising moral enhancement