Article info
PDFCommentaries
Is Agar biased against ‘post-persons’?
- Correspondence to Dr Ingmar Persson, Department of Philosophy, University of Gothenburg, Box 200, Gothenburg 40530, Sweden; ingmar.persson{at}filosofi.gu.se
Citation
Is Agar biased against ‘post-persons’?
Publication history
- Received July 27, 2012
- Accepted September 5, 2012
- First published October 9, 2012.
Online issue publication
January 17, 2013
Article Versions
- Previous version (9 October 2012).
- 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
- Why is it possible to enhance moral status and why doing so is wrong?
- Why we can't really say what post-persons are
- Reply to commentators on Unfit for the Future
- Technological moral enhancement or traditional moral progress? Why not both?
- ‘My child will never initiate Ultimate Harm’: an argument against moral enhancement
- Still afraid of needy post-persons
- Still unconvinced, but still tentative: a reply to DeGrazia
- Putting a price on empathy: against incentivising moral enhancement
- The biomedical enhancement of moral status
- Voluntary moral enhancement and the survival-at-any-cost bias