Moral Enhancement and Those Left Behind

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Opponents to genetic or biomedical human enhancement often claim that the availability of these technologies would have negative consequences for those who either choose not to utilize these resources or lack access to them. However, Thomas Douglas has argued that this objection has no force against the use of technologies that aim to bring about morally desirable character traits, as the unenhanced would benefit from being surrounded by such people. I will argue that things are not as straightforward as Douglas makes out. The widespread use of moral enhancement would raise the standards for praise and blame worthiness, making it much harder for the unenhanced to perform praiseworthy actions or avoid
performing blameworthy actions. This shows that supporters of moral enhancement cannot avoid this challenge in the way that Douglas suggests.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)500-510
Number of pages10
JournalBioethics
Volume30
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Aug 2016

Fingerprint

lack
resources
Enhancement
Supporters
Human Enhancement
Resources
Character Traits
Opponents

Cite this

Archer, Alfred. / Moral Enhancement and Those Left Behind. In: Bioethics. 2016 ; Vol. 30, No. 7. pp. 500-510.
@article{5577526bf64c4f86b75ab96816f4f2b5,
title = "Moral Enhancement and Those Left Behind",
abstract = "Opponents to genetic or biomedical human enhancement often claim that the availability of these technologies would have negative consequences for those who either choose not to utilize these resources or lack access to them. However, Thomas Douglas has argued that this objection has no force against the use of technologies that aim to bring about morally desirable character traits, as the unenhanced would benefit from being surrounded by such people. I will argue that things are not as straightforward as Douglas makes out. The widespread use of moral enhancement would raise the standards for praise and blame worthiness, making it much harder for the unenhanced to perform praiseworthy actions or avoidperforming blameworthy actions. This shows that supporters of moral enhancement cannot avoid this challenge in the way that Douglas suggests.",
author = "Alfred Archer",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1111/bioe.12251",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "500--510",
journal = "Bioethics",
issn = "0269-9702",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

Moral Enhancement and Those Left Behind. / Archer, Alfred.

In: Bioethics, Vol. 30, No. 7, 07.08.2016, p. 500-510.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Moral Enhancement and Those Left Behind

AU - Archer, Alfred

PY - 2016/8/7

Y1 - 2016/8/7

N2 - Opponents to genetic or biomedical human enhancement often claim that the availability of these technologies would have negative consequences for those who either choose not to utilize these resources or lack access to them. However, Thomas Douglas has argued that this objection has no force against the use of technologies that aim to bring about morally desirable character traits, as the unenhanced would benefit from being surrounded by such people. I will argue that things are not as straightforward as Douglas makes out. The widespread use of moral enhancement would raise the standards for praise and blame worthiness, making it much harder for the unenhanced to perform praiseworthy actions or avoidperforming blameworthy actions. This shows that supporters of moral enhancement cannot avoid this challenge in the way that Douglas suggests.

AB - Opponents to genetic or biomedical human enhancement often claim that the availability of these technologies would have negative consequences for those who either choose not to utilize these resources or lack access to them. However, Thomas Douglas has argued that this objection has no force against the use of technologies that aim to bring about morally desirable character traits, as the unenhanced would benefit from being surrounded by such people. I will argue that things are not as straightforward as Douglas makes out. The widespread use of moral enhancement would raise the standards for praise and blame worthiness, making it much harder for the unenhanced to perform praiseworthy actions or avoidperforming blameworthy actions. This shows that supporters of moral enhancement cannot avoid this challenge in the way that Douglas suggests.

U2 - 10.1111/bioe.12251

DO - 10.1111/bioe.12251

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 500

EP - 510

JO - Bioethics

JF - Bioethics

SN - 0269-9702

IS - 7

ER -