Advertisement

Viel Lärm um nichts?

Konzeptionen von Wohlbefinden in der Debatte um Neuroenhancement
  • Caroline HarnackeEmail author
  • Ineke Bolt
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Neuroenhancement verspricht große Verheißungen: jetzt schon, und sicherlich umso mehr in der Zukunft, können wir unsere Denkfähigkeit erhöhen, die Aufmerksamkeit steigern, die Stimmungslage aufhellen, mehr mit unseren Sinnen wahrnehmen und mit mehr Sinnen wahrnehmen. Befürworter von Neuroenhancement nehmen oftmals bereitwillig an, dass durch diese Enhancements die Lebensqualität der betroffenen Individuen erhöht wird. Die Steigerung der kognitiven Fähigkeiten oder, allgemeiner ausgedrückt, unserer Fähigkeiten im Allgemeinen mache unser Leben besser und darum sollten wir (Neuro-)enhancement befürworten (z.B. Harris 2007).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Amundson R (2000) Against Normal Function. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology & Biomedical Science 31(1): 33-53Google Scholar
  2. Aristoteles (1985) Nikomachische Ethik. 4., durchgesehene Aufl., Bien G (Hg) HamburgGoogle Scholar
  3. Asch A, Wasserman D (2005) Where is the sin in synecdoche? Prenatal testing and the parent-child relationship. In: Wasserman D, Bickenbach J, Wachbroit R (2005): 172-216Google Scholar
  4. Bentham J (1823) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. A new edition, corrected by the author. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd NF, et al. (1990) Whose Utilities for Decision Analysis? Medical Decision Making 10(1): 58-67Google Scholar
  6. Brickman P, Coates D, Janoff-Bulman R (1978) Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of personality and social psychology 36(8): 917-927Google Scholar
  7. Brocher-Hastings Summer Academy on Human Enhancement (2011) Abstracts & BioGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchanan A, et al. (2001) From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Crisp R (2013) Well-Being. In: Zalta EN (Hg) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/well-being/ [Accessed September 5, 2012]
  10. Dijkers MP (1999) Correlates of life satisfaction among persons with spinal cord injury. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 80(8): 867-876Google Scholar
  11. Eilers M, Grüber K, Rehmann-Sutter C (Hg) (2012) Verbesserte Körper – gutes Leben? Bioethik, Enhancement und die Disability Studies. FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  12. Fröding B (2011) Cognitive Enhancement, Virtue Ethics and the Good Life. Neuroethics, 4(3): 223-234.Google Scholar
  13. Goering S (2008) “You Say You’re Happy, but…”: Contested Quality of Life Judgments in Bioethics and Disability Studies. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5(2): 125-135Google Scholar
  14. Griffin J (1986) Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Hahn HD, Belt TL (2004) Disability Identity and Attitudes Toward Cure in a Sample of Disabled Activists. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45(4): 453-464Google Scholar
  16. Harris J (2007) Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  17. Haybron DM (2008) The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Heathwood C (2010) Welfare. In: Skorupski J (2010): 645-655Google Scholar
  19. Hensel E, et al. (2002) Subjective judgements of quality of life: a comparison study between people with intellectual disability and those without disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 46(2): 95-107Google Scholar
  20. Hope T (2011) Cognitive Therapy and Positive Psychology Combined: A Promising Approach to the Enhancement of Happiness. In: Savulescu J, ter Meulen R, Kahane G (2011): 377-399Google Scholar
  21. Kraut R (2009) What Is Good and Why: The Ethics of Well-Being. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Lannering B, et al. (1990) Long-term sequelae after pediatric brain tumors: Their effect on disability and quality of life. Medical and Pediatric Oncology 18(4): 304-310Google Scholar
  23. Mill JS (1863) Utilitarianism. LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Morris S (2006) Twisted lies: My journey in an imperfect body. In: Parens E (2006): 3-12Google Scholar
  25. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Nussbaum M, Sen A (Hg) (1993) The Quality of life. Oxford/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Oliver M (1990) The Politics of Disablement: A Sociological Approach. LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Parens E (Hg) (2006) Surgically Shaping Children: Technology, Ethics, And the Pursuit of Normality. BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  29. Parfit D (1984) Reasons and Persons. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Ralston DC, Ho JH (Hg) (2010) Philosophical Reflections on Disability. DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  31. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Cambridge/LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Rehmann-Sutter C (2012) Können und wünschen können. In: Eilers M, Grüber K, Rehmann-Sutter C (2012): 63-86Google Scholar
  33. Sackett DL, Torrance GW (1978) The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. Journal of Chronic Diseases 31(11): 697-704Google Scholar
  34. Savulescu J (2007) In defence of Procreative Beneficence. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(5): 284-288Google Scholar
  35. Savulescu J (2009) Autonomy, Well-Being, Disease, and Disability. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 16(1): 59-65Google Scholar
  36. Savulescu J, Kahane G (2009) The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics 23(5): 274-290Google Scholar
  37. Savulescu J, Sandberg A, Kahane G (2011) Well-being and enhancement. In: Savulescu J, ter Meulen R, Kahane G (2011): 3-18Google Scholar
  38. Savulescu J, ter Meulen R, Kahane G (Hg) (2011): Enhancing Human Capacities. MaldenGoogle Scholar
  39. Schermer M (2003) In search of ’the good life’ for demented elderly. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6(1): 35-44Google Scholar
  40. Shakespeare T (2006) Disability rights and wrongs. London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Silvers A (Hg) (1998) Disability, difference, discrimination: perspectives on justice in bioethics and public policy. New York/OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Skorupski J (Hg) (2010) The Routledge Companion to Ethics. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Sumner LW (1996) Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Tännsjö T (2009) Ought We to Enhance Our Cognitive Capacities? Bioethics 23(7): 421-432Google Scholar
  45. Tännsjö T (2010) Utilitarianism, Disability, and Society. In: Ralston DC, Ho JH (2010): 91-108Google Scholar
  46. Terzi L (2004): The social model of disability: A philosophical critique. Journal of Applied Philosophy 21(2): 141-157Google Scholar
  47. Tremain S (2001) On the government of disability. Social theory and practice 27(4): 617-636Google Scholar
  48. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C (2003) Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Quality of Life Research 12(6): 599-607Google Scholar
  49. Verri A, et al. (1999) An Italian–Australian comparison of quality of life among people with intellectual disability living in the community. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 43(6): 513-522Google Scholar
  50. Wasserman D, Bickenbach J, Wachbroit R (Hg) (2005) Quality of Life and Human Difference: Genetic Testing, Health Care, and Disability. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Wasserman D, et al. (2011) Disability: Definitions, Models, Experience. In: Zalta EN (Hg) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/disability/ [Accessed June 6, 2012]
  52. Wasserman D, Bickenbach J, Wachbroit R (2005) Introduction. In: Wasserman D, Bickenbach J, Wachbroit R (2005): 1-26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medewerkers GeesteswetenschappenUniversiteit UtrechtUtrechtNiederlande

Personalised recommendations