• Fiachra O’BrolcháinEmail author
  • Bert Gordijn
Reference work entry


Although we now face issues that are global in scale, much of our moral thinking (as well as political action) is concerned with local issues, both temporally and geographically. This can be most clearly observed in the response to the environmental problems we face. The effects of environmental degradation and global warming are becoming apparent (United Nations Environment Programme, 2011), and will affect future generations, particularly in terms of interests such as subsistence. The effects are currently most keenly felt in the “developing world,” where many struggle to gain access to sufficient food and to clean water (United Nations Development Programme, 2011). Future generations will have to cope with the greater degrees of global warming, further environmental degradation, and presumably fewer resources than we now have (in order to cater for a larger population). These harms are caused by the actions of current generations, but will be felt by future generations through no fault of their own. Despite widespread awareness of these harms, it has been difficult to make the changes necessary to mitigate or prevent them. Expanding the moral circle to take into account all the people of the globe as well as future generations is proving to be a difficult task. The response to the environmental crisis illustrates current problems in addressing new dilemmas that are global in scope and that will affect the lives of future generations.


Future Generation Human Dignity Cognitive Enhancement Moral Progress Moral Enhancement 
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.


  1. Bostrom, N. (2003). Human genetic enhancements: A transhumanist perspective. Journal of Value Enquiry, 37(4), 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bostrom, N., & Roache, R. (2007). Ethical issues in human enhancement. In J. Ryberg, T. Petersen, & C. Wolf (Eds.), New eaves in applied ethics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Bostrom, N., & Roache, R. (2009). Smart policy: Cognitive enhancements and the human interest. In J. Savulescu, R. ter Muelen, & G. Kahane (Eds.), Enhancing human capabilities. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Douglas, T. (2008). Moral enhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(3), 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Douglas, T. (2011). Moral enhancement via direct emotion modulation: A reply to John Harris. Bioethics, 25(2), 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dworkin, R. (1981a). What is equality? Part 1: Equality of welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(3), 185–246.Google Scholar
  7. Dworkin, R. (1981b). What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(4), 283–345.Google Scholar
  8. Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  9. Gordijn, B., & Ten Have, H. (2012). Ethics of mitigations, adaptation and geoengineering. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal, 15(1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, J. (2009). Enhancements are a moral obligation. In J. Savulescu & N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T. A. J., & Taylor, S. (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet, 372, 1661–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nozick, R. (1975). Anarchy, state, and Utopia. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2008). The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(3), 162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pogge, T. (2008). World poverty and human rights (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Sandel, M. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge, US: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Savulescu, J. (2003). New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10(1), 36–39. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62202-X.Google Scholar
  19. Savulescu, J. (2007). Justice, fairness, and enhancement. In Progress in convergence: Technologies for human wellbeing (Vol. 1093, pp. 321–338). Boston: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  20. Savulescu, J. (2009). Enhancement and fairness. In P. Healey & S. Rayner (Eds.), Unnatural selection: The challenges of engineering tomorrow’s people. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  21. Singer, P. (2009). Parental choice and human improvement. In J. Savulescu & N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human enhancement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sparrow, R. (2011). A not-so-new eugenics: Harris and Savulescu on human enhancement. The Hastings Center Report, 41(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  23. UNESCO. (2005). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Available at:
  24. United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs. (2011). World Population Prospects: the 2010 Revision. Highlights and Advance Tables. Available at:
  25. United Nations Development Programme. (2011). Human Development Report 2011. Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All. Available at:
  26. United Nations Environment Programme. (2011). Humanity Can and Must Do More with Less. Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EthicsDublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations