In Defence of State Directed Enhancement

Fowler, Timothy M

doi:10.1111/japp.12068

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…My proposal differs also from the version of "liberal" eugenics recently advocated by Fowler (2015). This author agrees with Agar in rejecting authoritarian eugenics, but his statist and perfectionist view grants the state the legitimacy to limit parent's choices to a greater extent than Agar would wish.…”

Section: Conclusion: the Virtues Of Political Minimalismmentioning

confidence: 66%

Political Minimalism and Social Debates: The Case of Human-Enhancement Technologies

Alcázar¹

2017

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A faulty understanding of the relationship between morality and politics encumbers many contemporary debates on human enhancement. As a result, some ethical reflections on enhancement undervalue its social dimensions, while some social approaches to the topic lack normative import. In this essay, I use my own conception of the relationship between ethics and politics, which I call "political minimalism," in order to support and strengthen the existing social perspectives on human-enhancement technologies.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion: the Virtues Of Political Minimalismmentioning

confidence: 66%

Political Minimalism and Social Debates: The Case of Human-Enhancement Technologies

Alcázar¹

2017

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To be sure, children can be drilled and morals imprinted. But these forms of education, at least in the later developmental stages, are themselves worrisome and pedagogical scholarship has been discussing other, more dialogical forms for decades (on the problem of children's autonomy and state neutrality, see Callan 2004;Fowler 2015).…”

Section: Moral Education Versus Bioenhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

How (not) to Argue For Moral Enhancement: Reflections on a Decade of Debate

Paulo

Bublitz

2017

Topoi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords Moral enhancement · Bioenhancement · Climate change · Methodological individualism · Moral education · Anti-behaviorist fallacy "Advances in the cognitive sciences have made neurotechnology imperative… The cognitive sciences are now the critical sciences; they will determine the answer to the ultimate moral question of human survival. Given the urgency of this immediate survival problem, the cognitive and social sciences must enable us to control [our] animalistic, barbaric, and primitive propensities … and subordinate these negatives to the uniquely human moral and ethical characteristics of love, kindness, and empathy. … We can no longer afford to rely solely on the traditional, prescientific attempts to contain human cruelty and destructiveness. The techniques and appeals of religion, moral philosophy, law, and education … are, in themselves, no longer appropriate [in] the present survival urgency. …The work on the effects of direct stimulation of certain areas of the brain, … the effects of certain drugs on exciting, tranquilizing, or depressing the emotional and motivational levels of the individual; … suggest that we might be on the threshold of that type of scientific biochemical intervention which could stabilize and make dominant [our] moral and ethical propensities … and subordinate, if not eliminate, … negative and primitive behavioral tendencies. ….It is possible to object to the era of neurotechnology on 'moral' grounds and to assert that these suggestions are repugnant because they are manipulative and will take away [the] natural right to make errors-even those errors which perpetrate cruelties and destruction upon other human beings. In the light of the realities of and possible consequences of nuclear weaponry, these allegedly moral arguments seem mockingly, pathetically immoral. It Abstract The controversy over moral bioenhancement has fallen into a stalemate between advocates and critics. We wish to overcome this stalemate by addressing some of the key challenges any moral enhancement project has to meet. In particular, we shall argue that current proposals are unpersuasive as they, first, fail to diagnose the often complex causes of contemporary moral maladies and, second, are premised on methodological individualism. Focusing on brains and minds neglects social and environmental factors. Solving the mega-problems of today very likely requires more than transforming individual brains, it requires structural and higher-level changes. By itself, moral bioenhancement is thus insufficient for solving these problems. Moreover, we outline some of the yet unresolved problems of (democratic) legitimacy a mandatory state-run bioenhancement project faces and show why they cannot be defused through analogies with moral education. Finally, normatively less worrisome means of enhancing morality, such as psychotherapies affording self-exploration, are already available. Moral bioenhancement may thus not even be necessary for solving today's mega problems. The overemphasis on speculative future te...

show abstract

“…First, one should not analogize civic education of children and moral enhancement of the general populace [43]. The normative relation between parents and the state vis-à-vis children (and their future) who do not yet have a fully developed preference structure and opinion forming capacities is too dissimilar to the relation between government and citizens as bearers of political power.…”

Section: Critical Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pow(d)er to the People? Voter Manipulation, Legitimacy, and the Relevance of Moral Psychology for Democratic Theory

Paulo

Bublitz

2016

Neuroethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What should we do if climate change or global injustice require radical policy changes not supported by the majority of citizens? And what if science shows that the lacking support is largely due to shortcomings in citizens' individual psychology such as cognitive biases that lead to temporal and geographical parochialism? Could then a plausible case for enhancing the morality of the electorate-even against their will-be made? But can a democratic government manipulate the will of the people without losing democratic legitimacy? This paper explores the problems that governmental manipulation of voters pose for democratic legitimacy and the tensions between non-manipulated input and morally acceptable output. These venerable issues of political theory resurface in light of recent suggestions to tackle today's global mega-problems by Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu. They suggest that to avert the looming catastrophe, governments should alter psychological traits of the citizenry through biomedical means, from pharmaceuticals to genetics. However, we argue that a government cannot rule with democratic legitimacy if elected by a will of the people it manipulated before. Normatively, conferring power from the governed onto governors is a onedirectional relation that is incompatible with manipulation. But while it is tempting to rebut suggestions to morally enhance the people as antithetical to essential ideas of democracy, swift rebuttals tend to overlook the deeper challenge: Majoritarian decision-making may lead to inacceptable outcomes. The dilemma between input and output runs through major works in political theory. Rather than wishfully ignoring the dangers of democracy, democratic theory has to provide answers.

show abstract

In Defence of State Directed Enhancement

Cited by 9 publications

References 8 publications

Political Minimalism and Social Debates: The Case of Human-Enhancement Technologies

Political Minimalism and Social Debates: The Case of Human-Enhancement Technologies

How (not) to Argue For Moral Enhancement: Reflections on a Decade of Debate

Pow(d)er to the People? Voter Manipulation, Legitimacy, and the Relevance of Moral Psychology for Democratic Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About