Outliers, Freaks, and Cheats: Constituting Normality in the Age of Enhancement

Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 52)

Abstract

This chapter argues that uneasiness about enhancement in sport is linked to a sense of the normal that is inherent to perceptual experience itself. Using Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology, I argue that normality is a structural component of our experience of the world and most significantly, others in the world. Nonetheless, what the normal is, its actual content, is a matter of historical contingency that is developed over time in social relations with others. On the basis of the phenomenological conception of normality, I argue that the possibility of sharing a world of common projects and goals with others is dependent on perceiving them as normal in the relevant sense. Normality, in this case, is based on the possibility of strong empathic relations with another: being able to imagine the structure and flow of another’s experiences as my own. On the grounds of this analysis, I argue that while some enhancements may stretch the ties of empathy, it is difficult to imagine them being broken completely. The concepts of normality and empathy ground what I call a phenomenological species concept that may exceed the boundaries of a biological species definition. I argue that it is the phenomenological species concept and not the biological one which holds ethical significance. Following from this, I hold that ethical arguments that appeal to the unity of the biological species as having an ethical significance are unfounded.

Keywords

Athletic Performance Ideal Norm Moral Community Aesthetic Experience Aesthetic Appreciation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agar, N. 2010. Humanity’s end: Why we should reject radical enhancement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Buchanan, A., D.W. Brock, N. Daniels, and D. Winkler. 2000. From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Camporesi, S. 2008. Oscar Pistorius, enhancement and post-humans. Journal of Medical Ethics 34(9): 639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Camporesi, S., and P. Maugeri. 2010. Castor Semenya: Sport, categories, and the creative role of ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 36: 378–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carel, H. 2011. Phenomenology and its application in medicine. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32(1): 133–146.Google Scholar
  6. Carel, H. 2012. Phenomenology as a resource for patients. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37(2): 96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuller, S. 2011. Humanity 2.0, what it means to be human, past, present, and future. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Husserl, E. 1970. Crisis of the European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Trans. D. Carr. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Husserl, E. 1973. In Husserliana XIV Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität . Texte aus dem Nachlass. Zweiter Teil: 1921–1928, ed. Kern Iso. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Husserl, E. 1989. Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy. Second book: Studies in the phenomenology of constitution. Trans. R. Rojcewicz, and A. Schuwer. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Husserl, E. 1993. In Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Ergänzungsband. Texte aus dem Nachlass 1934–1937, ed. R.M. Smid. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Merleau-Ponty, M. 2011. Le monde sensible et le monde de l’expression, notes de cours au Collège de France, 1953. Geneva: Metis Presses.Google Scholar
  13. Siep, L. 2003. Normative aspects of the human body. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28(2): 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wasserman, D. 2008. Performance-enhancing technologies and the values of athletic competition. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 28(3–4): 22–27.Google Scholar
  15. Zahavi, D. 2001. Husserl and transcendental intersubjectivity. Trans. E. Behnke. Athens: University of Ohio Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Arts, Faculty of Arts, Creative Industries and EducationUniversity of the West of EnglandBristolUK

Personalised recommendations