Moral Enhancement and Self-Subversion Objections

被引:7
作者
Sorensen, Kelly [1 ]
机构
[1] Ursinus Coll, Collegeville, PA 19426 USA
关键词
Moral enhancement; Bioenhancement; Moral self-subversion; CONSEQUENTIALISM; SAINTS; BAD;
D O I
10.1007/s12152-014-9208-1
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Some say moral bioenhancements are urgent and necessary; others say they are misguided or simply will not work. I examine a class of arguments claiming that moral bioenhancements are problematic because they are self-subverting. On this view, trying to make oneself or others more moral, at least through certain means, can itself be immoral, or at least worse than the alternatives. The thought here is that moral enhancements might fail not for biological reasons, but for specifically morally self-referential reasons. I argue that moral bioenhancements, in a restricted set of cases, are self-subverting such that they are impermissible. Further, some moral bioenhancements would result in agents who are less admirable than they might have been through other means.
引用
收藏
页码:275 / 286
页数:12
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]   SAINTS [J].
ADAMS, RM .
JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 1984, 81 (07) :392-401
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2011, HUMANITY ETHICS BIOM
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1987, Reasons and persons
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2002, ETHICS KILLING PROBL, DOI DOI 10.1093/0195079981.001.0001
[5]  
Broad C. D., 1929, 5 TYPES ETHICAL THEO
[6]  
Buchanan A., 2000, From chance to choice: Genetics justice
[7]  
Carter J. Adam, 2013, BIOETHICS IN PRESS
[8]  
Darwin C., 1871, P475
[9]   MORAL ENHANCEMENT VIA DIRECT EMOTION MODULATION: A REPLY TO JOHN HARRIS [J].
Douglas, Thomas .
BIOETHICS, 2013, 27 (03) :160-168
[10]  
Douglas Thomas, 2008, J Appl Philos, V25, P228, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00412.x