| Title |
The new enhancement technologies and the place of vulnerability in our lives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11017-016-9354-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John G. Quilter |
| Abstract |
What is the place of vulnerability in our lives? The current debate about the ethics of enhancement technologies provides a context in which to think about this question. In my view, the current debate is likely to be fruitless, largely because we bring the wrong ethical resources to bear on its questions. In this article, I recall an important, but currently neglected, role that moral concepts play in our thinking, a role they should especially play in relation to the introduction of new technologies. I call this the 'contemplative role of moral concepts'. I then contrast two approaches to the contemplative role of moral concepts which are found in the current literature, and show why it is important to keep in mind both of these approaches when thinking about human vulnerability. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 14% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 7% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#4,185,029
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#58
of 292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,736
of 298,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 292 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 298,620 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.