| Title |
Moral Blindness – The Gift of the God Machine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroethics, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12152-016-9272-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Harris |
| Abstract |
The continuing debate between Persson and Savulescu and myself over moral enhancement concerns two dimensions of a very large question. The large question is: what exactly makes something a moral enhancement? This large question needs a book length study and this I provide in my How to be Good, Oxford 2016. (JH 2016). In their latest paper Moral Bioenhancement, Freedom and Reason take my book as their point of departure and the first dimension of the big question they address is one that emphasizes a distinction, not highlighted in their original 2008 paper, between a moral enhancement that will ensure an improvement in morality and one that will simply make people more motivated to be moral. The second issue concerns whether anything that would be a "moral enhancement" properly so called, could involve denying moral agents the very possibility of autonomously choosing to try to be good. In this response, although P&S cover a number of other related issues, I shall concentrate on these two points. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 18% |
| Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 2 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 9 | 53% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 2 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,179,390
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#249
of 418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,994
of 364,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.