Enhancement: are ethicists excessively influenced by baseless speculations?

Abstract

Most commentators draw a sharp distinction between therapy and enhancement, applauding therapy and rejecting enhancement. Not only is this distinction unclear but enhancement is often seen in grandiose terms in which human beings are radically transformed. Such far-reaching visions are then used to reject current procedures such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. To overcome this highly problematic impasse, enhancement has been divided into three categories, ranging from the health-related enhancement of category 1, through the non-health-related enhancement of category 2, to the transhumanism or posthumanism of category 3. Arguably, most enhancements are of the category 1 variety, and hence closely related to treatment. Also, we are already enhanced, when compared with our forebears. It is only when we accept this and dispense with baseless speculation will we be in a position to conduct ethical discussions within a realistic framework.

Speculative Ethics: Valid Enterprise or Tragic Cul-De-Sac?

“…The degree to which ethics as a discipline should engage with highly speculative possibilities is a significant matter at a time when science fact and fiction are becoming increasingly difficult to disentangle (Jones, 2006). Cryonics has been used as a paradigmatic example, the extreme nature of which highlights the issues involved for bioethicists.…”

“…While Drexler's general idea of the way in which nanotechnology will develop is not necessarily false (only time can determine this), there is little relationship between these speculative visions and existing technologies. This may do intense disservice to existing technologies and the way in which they are perceived (Jones, 2006). However, like all empirical predictions about the way a technology will emerge or develop, speculations, such as those of Drexler, may indeed be false.…”

Invigorating ‘Nanoethics’: Recommendations for Improving Deliberations in Taiwan and Beyond

“…Second order questions include: Of course, recognising some of the important observations on the pursuit of overly speculative ethical assessments [15,31,43,67], we would caution against fixing our gaze too far into the future. Rather, we recommend "exploratory ethics", which links up and forms a part of a wider and inclusive discourse which sensitises actors to issues.…”

Neuroprosthetics and Neuroenhancement: Can We Draw a Line?

“…The interventions that have just been described appear to be in line with the prevention and treatment goals of medicine, and society will probably not have major objections to neuroelectronic implants as therapeutic devices [18]. Use of technical intervention to improve the physical, cognitive or psychological aspect of an individual beyond what is considered "normal" may be different.…”