Article Text
Abstract
In popular lay discourse, objections to human biological enhancement technologies are sometimes expressed in terms of the charge that they are unnatural. This paper critiques the literal claim that seems to be presented here, namely that such technologies are in some ordinary sense ’unnatural' and that it follows from this they are immoral. Such a conceptual ’nature argument' is unsound. However, the paper contends that this does not mean that the charge of unnaturalness should be dismissed out of hand. Rather, the charge of unnaturalness made by a non-philosophically trained public can be construed as expressive of a general attitude of conservative concern about enhancement technologies. Viewed in this way, the charge invites philosophers to take seriously the underlying empirical concerns that underpin these widespread lay reactions.
- ethics
- enhancement
- technology/risk assessment
- philosophical ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Sinning against nature: the theory of background conditions
- American biofutures: ideology and utopia in the Fukuyama/Stock debate
- Women's views on the moral status of nature in the context of prenatal screening decisions
- What is morally salient about enhancement technologies?
- Should we enhance animals?
- Human enhancement and perfection
- On the univocity of rationality: a response to Nigel Biggar’s ‘Why religion deserves a place in secular medicine’
- On not taking men as they are: reflections on moral bioenhancement
- Human nature
- Artificial gametes, the unnatural and the artefactual