The Ethics of Human Enhancement

Understanding the Debate

Editors: Steve Clarke, Julian Savulescu, Tony Coady, Alberto Giubilini, and Sagar Sanyal.

Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2016 Dec.

ISBN-13: 9780198754855

Debate between bioliberals (who adopt a permissive view about human enhancement) and bioconservatives (who oppose it) often fails to be constructive, since bioliberals are often dismissive of the conservative values to which bioconservatives frequently appeal. As a result, bioconservative opposition to enhancement remains poorly understood by bioliberals. We attempt to increase this understanding first by identifying conservative values underlying bioconservative opposition to enhancement, and second by considering on what grounds bioconservatives might object to the biological enhancement of bioconservative values. By identifying grounds that appeal to values shared by both bioconservatives and bioliberals, we aim to provide a platform on which human enhancement can be constructively debated by bioliberals and bioconservatives. We close by focusing on Mill's arguments in favour of originality as possible support for bioconservative argument.

Free Book at PubMed Central

Changing Memories: Between Ethics and Speculation.

Racine E, Affleck W

AMA J Ethics. 2016 Dec 01;18(12):1241-1248

Over the past decade, a debate has emerged between those who believe that memory-modulating technologies are inherently dangerous and need to be regulated and those who believe these technologies present minimal risk and thus view concerns about their use as far-fetched and alarmist. This article tackles three questions central to this debate: (1) Do these technologies jeopardize personhood? (2) Are the risks of these technologies acceptable? (3) Do these technologies require special regulation or oversight? Although concerns about the unethical use of memory-modulating technologies are legitimate, these concerns should not override the responsible use of memory-modulating technologies in clinical contexts. Accordingly, we call for careful comparative analysis of their use on a case-by-case basis.

Free Article