Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Ethik und Moralphilosophie

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 321–342 | Cite as

Enhancement: Consequentialist Arguments

  • Jan-Hendrik HeinrichsEmail author
  • Mandy Stake
Forschungsbericht
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

Enhancement, the improvement of mental capacities with psychoactive substances and technologies has stimulated one of the largest debates in contemporary bioethics. Surprisingly few participants in this debate take note of the tendentious legal status of psychoactive pharmaceuticals as the primary means of enhancement.

Enhancement technologies and substances have measurable effects on specific measurable cognitive functions. A major issue of contention in the debate is how to evaluate these effects, i. e. which theory of value to use. It is contested whether the pleasures and achievements resulting from the use of enhancement can be counted as such or can be ignored or devaluate by calling them fraudulent or inauthentic.

The alleged and real benefits of enhancement are not expected to be evenly distributed, nor is it always clear whether enhancement is a zero-sum game or has benefits even for the non-users. This results in a complex structure of risks and benefits for individuals and groups, which needs to be broken down in detail.

Keywords

Enhancement Consequentialism Authenticity Axiology Psychopharmaceuticals 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We want to thank our colleagues at the Institute for Ethics in the Neurosciences at Forschungszentrum Jülich, who provided ample and helpful input in several debates. A special thanks goes to Markus Rüther, who will co-author one part of this little series and significantly helped to shape the whole.

References

  1. Ach, Johann S., Birgit Beck, Beate Lüttenberg und Barbara Stroop. 2018. “Neuro-Enhancement: Worum es geht.” In Die Leistungssteigerung des menschlichen Gehirns: Neuro-Enhancement im interdisziplinären Diskurs, edited by Nicola Erny, Matthias Herrgen und Jan C. Schmidt. 37-56. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agar, Nicholas. 2010. Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement. A Bradford Book.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, Alberto und Eliana La Ferrara. 2000. “Participation in Heterogeneous Communities.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (3): 847-904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allhoff, Fritz. 2005. “Germ-line Genetic Enhancement and Rawlsian Primary Goods.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal 15 (1): 39-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allhoff, Fritz, Patrick Lin, James Moor und John Weckert. 2010. Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions & Answers. In Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology.Google Scholar
  6. Allhoff, Fritz, Patrick Lin und Jesse Steinberg. 2011. “Ethics of Human Enhancement: An Executive Summary.” Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2): 201-212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aristotle. 1984. Complete works of Aristotle. The revised oxford translation. Herausgegeben von Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Athenaeus. 2006. The Learned Banqueters: Books I‑III.106e, edited by S. Douglas Olson. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Barbrook, Richard und Andy Cameron. 1996. The Californian Ideology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baudelaire, Charles. 2002. On Wine and Hashish. Herausgegeben von M. Drabble. Potsdam: Hesperus.Google Scholar
  11. Beck, Birgit. 2015. “Conceptual and Practical Problems of Moral Enhancement.” Bioethics 29 (4): 233-240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boldt, Joachim und Giovanni Maio. 2009. “Neuroenhancement. Vom technizistischen Missverständnis geistiger Leistungsfähigkeit.” In Das technisierte Gehirn : Neurotechnologien als Herausforderung für Ethik und Anthropologie, edited by Oliver Müller, Jens Clausen und Giovanni Maio. 383-397. Paderborn: mentis.Google Scholar
  13. Bostrom, Nick. 2005. “Transhumanist Values.” Journal of Philosophical Research 30 (Supplement): 3‑14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bostrom, Nick. 2008. “Why I Want to be a Posthuman When I Grow Up.” In Medical enhancement and posthumanity, edited by Bert Gordijn und Ruth Chadwick. 107-137. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Buchanan, Allan. 2008. “Enhancement and the ethics of development.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal 18 (1): 1‑34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buchanan, Allan. 2009. “Moral Status and Human Enhancement.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 37 (4): 346-381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buchanan, Allen. 2011. Better than human. The promise and perils of enhancing ourselves. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Buchanan, Allen, Dan. W. Brock, Norman Daniels und Daniel Wikler. 2001. From Chance to Choice. Genetics and Justice. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Caplan, Arthur L. 2009. “Good, better or best.” In Human Enhancement, edited by Julian Savulescu und Nick Bostrom. 199--209. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Carhart-Harris, Robin. 2018. “The entropic brain - revisited.” Neuropharmacology (in press).Google Scholar
  21. Carhart-Harris, Robin, Robert Leech, Peter Hellyer, Murray Shanahan, Amanda Feilding, Enzo Tagliazucchi, Dante Chialvo und David Nutt. 2014. “The entropic brain: a theory of conscious states informed by neuroimaging research with psychedelic drugs.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8 (20).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00020 Google Scholar
  22. Carter, Adrian, Emily Bell, Eric Racine und Wayne Hall. 2011. “Ethical Issues Raised by Proposals to Treat Addiction Using Deep Brain Stimulation.” Neuroethics 4 (2): 129-142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chatterjee, Anjan. 2004. “Cosmetic Neurology - The Controversy over Enhancing Movement, Mentation, and Mood.” Neurology 63 (6): 968-974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Choi, Jung-Kyoo und Samuel Bowles. 2007. “The Coevolution of Parochial Altruism and War.” Science 318 (5850): 636-640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1988. Staatstheoretische Schriften. Herausgegeben von Konrad Ziegler. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Coenen, C. 2014. “Transhumanism and its genesis: the shaping of human enhancement discourse by vision of the future.” Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies 26: 35-58.Google Scholar
  27. Daniels, Norman und James Sabin. 1997. “Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedures, Democratic Deliberation, and the Legitimacy Problem for Insurers.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 26 (4): 303-350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. de Jongh, Reinoud 2017. “Overclocking the brain? The potential and limitations of cognition-enhancing drugs.” In Rethinking cognitive enhancement, edited by R. H. J. ter Meulen, Ahmed Dahir Mohamed und Wayne Hall. 37-56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. DeGrazia, David. 2000. “Prozac, Enhancement, and Self‐Creation.” Hastings Center Report 30 (2): 34-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. DeGrazia, David. 2005. Human Identity and Bioethics. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Douglas, Thomas. 2015. “The Harms of Enhancement and the Conclusive Reasons View.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24 (1): 23-36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Earleywine, Mitch. 2002. Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Elliott, Carl. 1998. “The Tyranny of Happiness: Ethics and Cosmetic Psychopharmacology.” In Enhancing Human Traits. Ethical and Social Implications, edited by Erik Parens. 177-188. Washington D.C.: Norton.Google Scholar
  34. Elliott, Carl. 2003. Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream. New Yorl / London: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  35. Farah, Martha J., Judy Illes, Robert Cook-Deegan, Howard Gardner, Eric Kandel, Patricia King, Eric Parens, Barbara Sahakian und Paul Root Wolpe. 2004. “Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do?” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5: 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fingarette, Herbert. 1988. Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  37. Fukuyama, Francis. 2002. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  38. Glover, Jonathan. 2007. Choosing Children. Genes, Disability, and Design. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Grinspoon, Lester und J.B. Bakalar. 1979. Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Habermas, Jürgen. 2002. Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  41. Harris, John. 1992. Wonderwoman and Superman. The Ethics of Human Biotechnology. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Heinz, Andreas und Sabine Müller. 2017. “Exaggerating the benefits and downplaying the risks in the bioethical debate on cognitive neuroenhancement.” In Rethinking cognitive enhancement, edited by R. H. J. ter Meulen, Ahmed Dahir Mohamed und Wayne Hall. 69-86. Oxford: Oxfort University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Horvath, Jared C., Olivia Carter und Jason D. Forte. 2014. “Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Five Important Issues We Aren’t Discussing (But Probably Should Be).” Frontiers in systems neuroscience 8.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2014.00002 Google Scholar
  45. Hughes, James. 2004. Citizen Cyborg. Why democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ilieva, I., J. Boland und M. J. Farah. 2013. “Objective and subjective cognitive enhancing effects of mixed amphetamine salts in healthy people.” Neuropharmacology 64: 496-505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kamieński, Ł. 2016. Shooting Up: A Short History of Drugs and War. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kamm, Frances. 2009. “What is and is not wrong with enhancement?” In Human Enhancement, edited by Julian Savulescu und Nick Bostrom. 91-130. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kass, L. R. 2003. “Ageless bodies, happy souls: biotechnology and the pursuit of perfection.” New Atlantis (1): 9–28. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/ageless-bodies-happy-souls
  50. Kramer, Peter D. 1994. Listening to Prozac. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  51. Kurzweil, Ray. 1990. The age of intelligent machines. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lenk, Christian. 2002. Therapie und Enhancement: Ziele und Grenzen der modernen Medizin. Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
  53. Lewis, Marc. 2017. “Addiction and the Brain: Development, Not Disease.” Neuroethics 10 (1): 7‑18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lieb, K. 2010. Hirndoping: warum wir nicht alles schlucken solllten. München: Artemis & Winkler.Google Scholar
  55. Macklin, Ruth. 2006. “The New Conservatives in Bioethics: Who Are They and What Do They Seek?” The Hastings Center Report 36 (1): 34-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mehlman, Maxwell J. 2003. Wondergenes: Genetic Enhancement and the Future of Society. Bloomington, In. / Indianapolis, In.: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Mehlman, Maxwell J. und Jeffrey R. Botkin. 1998. Access to the genome. The challenge to equality. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Mehlman, Maxwell J., Patrick Lin und Keith Abney. 2013. Enhanced Warfighters: Risk, Ethics, and Policy. SSRN.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2202982 Google Scholar
  59. Mill, John Stuart. 1977. On liberty. Herausgegeben von J. M. Robson. Toronto / London: University of Toronto Press / Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  60. Mill, John Stewart. 2006. Utilitarismus. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  61. Moesgen, Diana und Miachael Klein. 2015. Neuroenhancement. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag.Google Scholar
  62. Mohamed, Ahmed Dahir. 2014. “Neuroethical issues in pharmacological cognitive enhancement.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 5 (5): 533-549.Google Scholar
  63. Müller, Christian P. und Gunter Schumann. 2011. “Drugs as Instruments: A New Framework for Non-Addictive Psychoactive Drug Use.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (6): 293-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nutt, David. 2012. Drugs Without the Hot Air. Cambridge: UIT Cambridge.Google Scholar
  65. Parens, Eric. 1998. “Is Better Always Good?: The Enhancement Project.” Hastings Center Report 28 (1): 1‑17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Parens, Eric. 2005. “Authenticity and Ambivalence” Hastings Center Report 35 (5): 34-41.Google Scholar
  67. Persson, Ingmar und Julian Savulescu. 2012. Unfit for the Future. the Need for Moral Enhancement. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pollan, Michael. 2018. How to change your mind. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  69. Powell, Russell und Allen Buchanan. 2011. “Breaking Evolution’s Chains: The Prospect of Deliberate Genetic Modification in Humans.” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 36 (1): 6‑27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. President’s Council On Bioethics (U.S.). 2003. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Washington, D.C: The President’s Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
  71. Ragguett, Renee-Marie, Danielle S Cha, Ron Kakar, Joshua D Rosenblat, Yena Lee und Roger S McIntyre. 2016. “Assessing and measuring cognitive function in major depressive disorder.” Evidence Based Mental Health 19 (4): 106-109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Repantis, Dimitris, Oona Laisney und Isabella Heuser. 2010. “Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review.” Pharmacological Research 61 (6): 473-481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Repantis, Dimitris, Peter Schlattmann, Oona Laisney und Isabella Heuser. 2009. “Antidepressants for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: a systematic review.” Poiesis & Praxis 6 (3): 139-174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Repantis, Dimitris, Peter Schlattmann, Oona Laisney und Isabella Heuser. 2010. “Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review.” Pharmacological Research 62 (3): 187-206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sandberg, Anders. 2011. “Cognitive Enhancement: Upgrading the Brain.” In Enhancing Human Capacities, edited by Julian Savulescu, Ruud ter Muelen und Guy Kahane. 71-91. Malden, Ma / Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  76. Sandberg, Anders und Joao Fabiano. 2017. “Modeling the Social Dynamics of Moral Enhancement: Social Strategies Sold Over the Counter and the Stability of Society.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 26 (3): 431-445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sandel, Michael J. 2009. The Case Against Perfection. Cambridge, Mass. / London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Savulescu, Julian. 2001. “Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children.” Bioethics 15 (5-6): 413-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schleim, Stephan. 2010. “Cognitive Enhancement - Sechs Gründe dagegen.” In Künstliche Sinne, gedoptes Gehirn: Neurotechnik und Neuroethik, edited by H. Fink und R. Rosenzweig. 179-207. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  80. Schleim, Stephan, Knut Schnell und Henrik Walter. 2007. “Perspectives on Psychopharmalogical Enhancement.” Newsletter of the EA European Academy of Technology and Innovation Assessment, 1‑3.Google Scholar
  81. Selgelid, Michael J. 2014. “Moderate eugenics and human enhancement.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17 (1): 3‑12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Silver, Lee M. 1997. Remaking Eden. How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
  83. Singh, Ilina und Kelly J. Kelleher. 2010. “Neuroenhancement in Young People: Proposal for Research, Policy, and Clinical Management.” AJOB Neuroscience 1 (1): 3‑16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smith, M. E. und M. J. Farah. 2011. “Are prescription stimulants “smart pills”? The epidemiology and cognitive neuroscience of prescription stimulant use by normal healthy individuals.” Psychol Bull 137 (5): 717-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stelmack, Robert M. und Anastasios Stalikas. 1991. “Galen and the Humour Theory of Temperament.” Personality and Individual Differences 12 (3): 255-263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sterling, Bruce. 1996. Schismatrix plus. New York: Ace Books.Google Scholar
  87. Wasserman, David. 2014. “When bad people do good things. Will moral enhancement make the world a better place?” Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (6): 374-375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wasson, R. Gordon, Albert Hofmann und Carl A. P. Ruck. 2008. The Road to Eleusis: Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries. Berkeley, Cal.: North Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  89. Wikler, Daniel. 1979. “Paternalism and the Mildly Retarded.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 8 (4): 377-392.Google Scholar
  90. Wikler, Daniel. 2010. “Paternalism in the Age of Cognitive Enhancement: Do Civil Liberties Presuppose Roughly Equal Mental Ability?” In Human Enhancement, edited by Julian Savulescu und Nick Bostrom. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Wilson, James. 2007. “Transhumanism and moral equality.” Bioethics 21 (8): 419-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yudkowsky, Eliezer. 2008. “Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.” In Global Catastrophic Risks, edited by Nick Bostrom und Milan M. Cirkovic. 309-345. Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Neurowissenschaften und Medizin, INM-8: Ethik in den NeurowissenschaftenForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH in der Helmholtz GemeinschaftJülichGermany
  2. 2.Deutsches Referenzzentrum für Ethik in den BiowissenschaftenBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations