State Neutrality and the Ethics of Human Enhancement Technologies

Basl, John

doi:10.1080/21507741003699249

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…REFERENCE Basl, J. 2010 The timely and controversial issue of patentable subject matter in the United States is closely related to the concerns raised by Basl (2010) in his article on state neutrality and human enhancement. In a case that will likely make its way up to the Supreme Court, the American Civil Liberties Union is contesting the right to patent genes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

State Neutrality and Patentable Subject Matter: Developing Controversial Biotechnology

Greenbaum

2010

AJOB Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

line between average health and enhancement and many R-HETs are used to help people with disabilities and diseases. However, again, serious concern for nonhuman animals in R-HET demands that the threshold for usage be substantially higher than it is for non R-HET. If this kind of moral consideration and exemption does not occur, then we are left to ask whether such concerns about trade-offs were ever relevant to us in the first place. One might ask, when will we ever decide that the inherent value of another being outweighs our conveniences, preferences, and desires?In conclusion, Basl focuses on a number of critical moral issues in R-HET, not the least of which is the consideration we give to the nonhuman animals that we rely upon to conduct this enterprise. Our treatment of nonhuman animals in R-HET is arguably a litmus test for our own consistency and honesty in this moral domain. How will we fare? REFERENCE Basl, J. 2010. State neutrality and the ethics of human enhancement technologies. AJOB Neuroscience 1(2): 41-48.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Co., 189 F 95 (SDNY 1911 Basl's (2010) paper is a welcome addition to the discussion of appropriate state policy concerning the use of nonhuman animals in cognitive enhancement research. In this commentary we challenge the author to better interrogate and explicate the boundary of what he christens "human-level moral status" and "T moral status" (41).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

State Neutrality and Patentable Subject Matter: Developing Controversial Biotechnology

Greenbaum

2010

AJOB Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In "State Neutrality and the Ethics of Human Enhancement Technologies," John Basl (2010) looks ahead to a genetically advanced future in which scientists have developed safe tools to engineer animals and people for non-healthrelated traits. He argues that political decisions about such practices, to be legitimate, must be made without reference to reasons that arise from within controversial worldviews.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Taking Sides on Genetic Modification

Fox

2010

AJOB Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regardless of justification of neutrality, there is a consensus in liberal societies: While the state must not be neutral concerning some moral questions, for example, questions of injustice or harm to others, citizens should be free to live their life according to their will, as long as no harm is caused to others. Concerning the case of enhancement technologies, this implies that regulation is not legitimate by reference to a controversial concept of a good life alone (Basl 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Enhancement to Overcome Laziness: Ethically Wrong or Just Stupid?

Ranisch

2015

AJOB Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article "Enhancing Motivation by Use of Prescription Stimulants: The Ethics of Motivation Enhancement" by Torben Kjaersgaard (2015) argues that bioethical debates on cognitive enhancement (CE) should rather focus on the question of motivational enhancement than performance enhancement. After all, available CE drugs only show modest performance-enhancing effects in healthy individuals, but significant performance maintenance effects. The latter issue, however, is frequently neglected in current bioethical debates (Ranisch, Garofoli, and Dubljevic 2013). His article discusses ethical questions concerning these neglected effects of motivational enhancement. He focuses on (self-) reported effects of Adderall use by healthy students and discusses ethical issues concerning accomplishment and effort. Kjaersgaard concludes that in most cases people should not use CE drugs to enhance motivation.While Kjaersgaard's article offers an insightful contribution to bio-and neuroethical questions, it fails to clarify the status of the normative claims he makes. In most cases, bioethical analyses focus on moral questions of enhancement technologies, such as liberty, justice, and harm. While Kjaersgaard makes clear that these aspects are important for an analysis of CE drugs, he is more interested in raising "some ethical questions beyond" these concerns. He identifies these as "individual issues," that is, "what contributes to" and what "constitutes a good life." I follow Kjaersgaard by terming these questions "ethical" rather than "moral" questions.It has sometimes been suggested that even though human enhancement technologies are innovative, they do not really pose new moral questions. The extended possibilities to modify, enhance, or even transform our nature rather confront us with questions about the human condition, how we want to live and how we should live well. Thus, possibilities of changing essential aspects of our psychological, emotional, and physiological constitution make it necessary to confront questions that are ethical by their nature, rather than moral. In this respect, Kjaersgaard's article is an important contribution to the ethics of human enhancement.Nevertheless, his approach faces a difficulty if it wishes to be of practical relevance or to even guide policymaking: Liberal societies are distinguished by a "reasonable pluralism" (the term used by Rawls), and we find a legitimate diversity of concepts of the good life. For this reason, it is widely believed the one key element of liberalism is state neutrality: Policies should not be justified by a controversial and contested concept of the good. Reasons for neutrality are different. Sometimes it is maintained for epistemic reasons that state policies should not be guided by a particular concept of the good since we are unable to prove its superiority. Other positions hold that neutrality is the best mean to guarantee social and political stability or human flourishing. Regardless of justification of neutrality, there is a consensus in liberal societies...

show abstract

State Neutrality and the Ethics of Human Enhancement Technologies

Cited by 19 publications

References 21 publications

State Neutrality and Patentable Subject Matter: Developing Controversial Biotechnology

State Neutrality and Patentable Subject Matter: Developing Controversial Biotechnology

Taking Sides on Genetic Modification

Cognitive Enhancement to Overcome Laziness: Ethically Wrong or Just Stupid?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About