Biotechnological moral enhancement

 
PIIS023620070002342-3-1
DOI10.31857/S023620070002342-3
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Junior Researcher, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Affiliation: Institute of Philosophy RAS
Address: Russian Federation
Journal nameChelovek
EditionIssue №6
Pages33-38
Abstract

The article deals with the social and humanitarian aspects of moral enhancement of a person by means of biotechnologies. The idea of biotechnological moral enhancement is based on the recent neurotechnological studies that explain the neurobiological foundations of human behavior, including prosocial behavior. Practical use of this knowledge would allow society to get rid of aggression, violence, corruption, and problems related to environmental pollution. A prerequisite for discussing biotechnological moral enhancement is the intention to use biotechnology to solve the problems faced by a person because of the development of science. In the view of the supporters of moral enhancement, the achievements of neuroscience and genetics can provide biotechnological tools for artificial stimulation of moral actions. The most of the technologies do change the genetic, physical, cognitive abilities of a person, and as a result they can change social structures, but they are not specifically aimed at modifying the personal freedom of making a decision, his/her ability to make certain decisions. The article considers both the problem of moral human enhancing from the point of view of its supporters (J. Savulescu, Douglas) and opponents (J. Harris, A. Buchanan) and the technological context of the problem of the moral enhancement. The epistemological shift proposed under the framework of the discussion of the idea of the moral enhancement not only compromises the idea of free will but also puts a person before a difficult task to justify traditional forms of culture and education as competitive forms of the formation of a personality.

Keywordsneurotechnology, technoscience, moral enhancement, oxytocin, biotechnologies
Received07.12.2018
Publication date07.12.2018
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

views: 1233

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Shekspir V. Venetsianskij kupets // Shekspir V. Izbr. proizvedeniya / Per. I.B. Mandel'shtama. M.–L.: GIKhL, 1950.

2. Yudin B.G. Chelovek i mashina: intimnye svyazi? // Rabochie tetradi po bioehtike. Chelovek — NBIC mashina (filosofsko-antropologicheskie i bioehticheskie issledovaniya). Vyp. 18, M.: MosGu, 2014. S. 103–117.

3. Buchanan A. Moral Status and Human Enhancement // Philosophy & Public Affairs. 2009. Vol. 37. No. 4. P. 346–381.

4. Douglas T. Moral bioenhancement, freedom and reasoning // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2014/06. Vol. 40. No. 6. P. 359–360.

5. Harris J., Savulescu J. A debate about moral enhancement //Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2015. Vol. 24. No. 1. P. 8–22.

6. Lawrence D.R., Palacios-Gonzalez C., Harris J. Artificial Intelligence. The Shylock Syndrome // Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2016. Vol. 25. P. 250–261.

7. Persson I., Savulescu J. Moral Transhumanism // Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. No. 35. 2010. P. 660.

8. Rommetveit K., Wynne B. Technoscience, imagined publics and public imaginations // Public Understanding of Science. 2017. Vol. 26. No. 2. P. 133–147.

9. Wasserman D. When bad people do good things: will moral enhancement make the world a better place? //Journal of Medical Ethics. 2014/06. Vol. 40. No. 6. P. 374–375.

10. Weiner K. et al. Have we seen the geneticisation of society? Expectations and evidence // Sociology of health & illness. 2017. Vol. 39. No. 7. P. 989–1004.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up