Article Text
Abstract
In a recent response to Persson and Savulescu's Unfit for the Future, Nicholas Agar argues that moral bioenhancement is dangerous. His grounds for this are that normal moral judgement should be privileged because it involves a balance of moral subcapacities; moral bioenhancement, Agar argues, involves the enhancement of only particular moral subcapacities, and thus upsets the balance inherent in normal moral judgement. Mistaken moral judgements, he says, are likely to result. I argue that Agar's argument fails for two reasons. First, having strength in a particular moral subcapacity does not necessarily entail a worsening of moral judgement; it can involve strength in a particular aspect of morality. Second, normal moral judgement is not sufficiently likely to be correct to be the standard by which moral judgements are measured.
- Enhancement
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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:
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Moral bioenhancement is dangerous
- Moral enhancement, freedom, and what we (should) value in moral behaviour
- Frequently overlooked realistic moral bioenhancement interventions
- Reply to commentators on Unfit for the Future
- Moral bioenhancement, freedom and reasoning
- A question about defining moral bioenhancement
- Taking liberties with free fall
- Voluntary moral enhancement and the survival-at-any-cost bias
- The moral bioenhancement of psychopaths
- Should moral bioenhancement be compulsory? Reply to Vojin Rakic