Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 359–378 | Cite as

Human Enhancement, Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility

Article

Abstract

This paper tries to clarify, strengthen and respond to two prominent objections to the development and use of human enhancement technologies. Both objections express concerns about the link between enhancement and the drive for hyperagency (i.e. the ability to control and manipulate all aspects of one’s agency). The first derives from the work of Sandel and Hauskeller—and is concerned with the negative impact of hyperagency on social solidarity. In responding to their objection, I argue that although social solidarity is valuable, there is a danger in overestimating its value and in neglecting some obvious ways in which the enhancement project can be planned so as to avoid its degradation. The second objection, though common to several writers, has been most directly asserted by Saskia Nagel, and is concerned with the impact of hyperagency on the burden and distribution of responsibility. Though this is an intriguing objection, I argue that not enough has been done to explain why this is morally problematic. I try to correct for this flaw before offering a variety of strategies for dealing with the problems raised.

Keywords

Enhancement Hyperagency Giftedness argument Solidarity Distribution of responsibility Compliance burdens 

References

  1. Alfano M, Beebe J (2012) The centrality of belief and reflection in Knobe effect cases: a unified account of the data. Monist 95(2):264–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchanan A (2011) Beyond humanity? OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Danaher J (2013) The vice of in-principlism and the harmfulness of love. Am J Bioeth 13(11):19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Danaher J (2014) Hyperagency and the good life – does extreme enhancement threaten meaning? Neuroethics 7(2):227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Douglas T (2014) Enhancing moral conformity and enhancing moral worth. Neuroethics 7(1):75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erler A (2014) Authenticity. In: Jennings B (ed) Bioethics, 4th edn. MacMillan Reference USA, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer JM, Tognazzini N (2009) The truth about tracing. Noûs 43(3):531–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fukuyama F (2003) Our posthuman future. Picador, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Goold I, Maslen H (2014) Must the surgeon take the pill? Negligence duty in the context of cognitive enhancement. Modern Law Rev 77(1):60–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Habermas J (2003) The future of human nature. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Hauskeller M (2011) Human enhancement and the giftedness of life. Philos Pap 40(1):55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hauskeller M (2013) Better humans? Understanding the enhancement project. Acumen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Knobe J (2003) Intentional action in folk psychology: an experimental investigation. Philos Psychol 16:309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCullogh, Kimeldorf, Cohen (2008) An adaptation for altruism? The social causes, social effects and social evolution of gratitude. Curr Trends Psychol Sci 17(4):281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nagel S (2010) Too much of a good thing? Neuroethics 3:109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Owens D (2007) Disenchantment. In: Antony L (ed) Philosophers without gods. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Parens E (2014) Shaping our selves. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rumbold J, Wasik M (2011) Diabetic drivers, hypoglycaemic unawareness, and automatism. Criminal Law Rev 11:863–872Google Scholar
  19. Sandel M (2009) The case against perfection. Belknap, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  20. Santoni de Sio F, Faulmuller N, Vincent N (2014) How cognitive enhancement can change our duties. Front Syst Neurosci 8:131Google Scholar
  21. Savulescu J, Persson I (2012) Moral enhancement, freedom and the god machine. Monist 95(3):399–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sepielli A (2012) The law’s ‘majestic equality’. Law Philos. doi:10.1007/S10982-012-9165-Y Google Scholar
  23. Sher G (2009) Responsibility without Awareness? OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vargas M (2005) The trouble with tracing. Midwest Stud Philos 29(1):269–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vincent N (2011) The challenges posed to private law from emerging cognitive enhancement technologies. In: Muller S, Zouridis S, Frishman M, Kistemaker L (eds) The law of the future and the future of law. Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, OsloGoogle Scholar
  26. Wood A, Froh JJ, Geraghty AW (2010) Gratitude and well-being: a review and theoretical integration. Clin Psychol Rev 30(7):890–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawNUI GalwayGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations