Article info
PDFAuthor meets critics: response
Moral bioenhancement is dangerous
- Correspondence to Dr Nicholas Agar, Philosophy Programme, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 4001, New Zealand; nicholas.agar{at}vuw.ac.nz
Citation
Moral bioenhancement is dangerous
Publication history
- Received May 30, 2013
- Accepted June 7, 2013
- First published December 17, 2013.
Online issue publication
March 23, 2015
Article Versions
- Previous version (17 December 2013).
- 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
- Reply to commentators on Unfit for the Future
- Moral enhancement, freedom, and what we (should) value in moral behaviour
- A question about defining moral bioenhancement
- Is moral bioenhancement dangerous?
- Frequently overlooked realistic moral bioenhancement interventions
- Too good for this world: moral bioenhancement and the ethics of making moral misfits
- Are we unfit for the future?
- Voluntary moral enhancement and the survival-at-any-cost bias
- On not taking men as they are: reflections on moral bioenhancement
- The moral bioenhancement of psychopaths