Title |
Moral Bioenhancement, Freedom and Reason
|
---|---|
Published in |
Neuroethics, July 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/s12152-016-9268-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Ingmar Persson, Julian Savulescu |
Abstract |
In this paper we reply to the most important objections to our advocacy of moral enhancement by biomedical means - moral bioenhancement - that John Harris advances in his new book How to be Good. These objections are to effect that such moral enhancement undercuts both moral reasoning and freedom. The latter objection is directed more specifically at what we have called the God Machine, a super-duper computer which predicts our decisions and prevents decisions to perpertrate morally atrocious acts. In reply, we argue first that effective moral bioenhancement presupposes moral reasoning rather than undermines it. Secondly, that the God Machine would leave us with extensive freedom and that the restrictions it imposes on it are morally justified by the prevention of harm to victims. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 25% |
Spain | 1 | 6% |
Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
Canada | 1 | 6% |
Turkey | 1 | 6% |
Singapore | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 12 | 75% |
Scientists | 3 | 19% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sweden | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 9 | 23% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
Professor | 5 | 13% |
Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
Other | 9 | 23% |
Unknown | 5 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Philosophy | 19 | 48% |
Psychology | 4 | 10% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
Other | 4 | 10% |
Unknown | 6 | 15% |