Ideas of Perfection and the Ethics of Human Enhancement

Abstract

Whatever ethical stance one takes in the debate regarding the ethics of human enhancement, one or more reference points are required to assess its morality. Some have suggested looking at the bioethical notions of safety, justice, and/or autonomy to find such reference points. Others, arguing that those notions are limited with respect to assessing the morality of human enhancement, have turned to human nature, human authenticity, or human dignity as reference points, thereby introducing some perfectionist assumptions into the debate. In this article, we ask which perfectionist assumptions should be used in this debate. After a critique of views that are problematic, we take a positive approach, suggesting some perfectionist elements that can lend guidance to the practice of human enhancement, based on the work of Martha Nussbaum's Capability Approach. We suggest that the central capabilities can be used to define the human aspect of human enhancement and thereby allow a moral evaluation of enhancement interventions. These central capabilities can be maximized harmoniously to postulate what an ideal human would look like. Ultimately, the aim of this article is twofold. First, it seeks to make explicit the perfectionist assumptions found in the debate and eliminate those that are problematic. Second, the paper clarifies an element that is often neglected in the debate about human enhancement, the view of the ideal human towards which human enhancement should strive. Here, we suggest that some central capabilities that are essential for an ideal human being can be maximized harmoniously and can therefore serve as possible reference points to guide human enhancement.

Payment implants as an element of human enhancement technology

“…Perhaps, therefore, also Human Enhancement Technologies will be morally accepted if they do not lead to damage to third parties (their sense of justice, threat to social position and resulting rights and obligations, level of autonomy, etc.). And even if the ideal we desire is not fully developed (it develops along with the development and change of society and its norms), we can create a set of qualities that we consider perfect, and which are necessary for us to lead an ideal life (Heilinger & Baumann, 2015) embedded in the context of "here and now"technologies as a tool to achieve excellence (Clark, 2003). And although currently what is reinforced seems to be socially different from the standard, in the long run it may become normal -a new standard, and the lack of improvements which are something unusual, deviating from the accepted social norms at a given moment.…”

An Obligation to Enhance?

“…Postulating hypothetical agreement under conditions of rationality and impartiality may be a more solid argument to rely on. Roduit, Heilinger and Baumann (2015) introduced a model that can function as a basis for such an argument. They strongly suggest to use Nussbaum's capabilities approach (Nussbaum 2011) as a basis on which a theory of ideal humanity can be built.…”

We Are Super-Humans

“…The "personal optimum state" is constituted by individual physical and psychological characteristics and influenced by six determining factors: political and social norms, rules and values, environmental factors, passive coercion, unconscious personal goals, statistically defined attributes, and personal considerations. Roduit et al have taken a more holistic approach looking at humanity as a whole [20]. Humans share in common some central capabilities that are essential to live a good human life.…”