Carter J Adam, Gordon Emma C
Bioethics. 2015 Mar;29(3):153-61. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12076. Epub 2013 Dec 23.
In a series of recent works, Julian Savulescu and Ingmar Persson insist that, given the ease by which irreversible destruction is achievable by a morally wicked minority, (i) strictly cognitive bio-enhancement is currently too risky, while (ii) moral bio-enhancement is plausibly morally mandatory (and urgently so). This article aims to show that the proposal Savulescu and Persson advance relies on several problematic assumptions about the separability of cognitive and moral enhancement as distinct aims. Specifically, we propose that the underpinnings of Savulescu's and Persson's normative argument unravel once it is suitably clear how aiming to cognitively enhance an individual will in part require that one aim to bring about certain moral goods we show to be essential to cognitive flourishing; conversely, aiming to bring about moral enhancement in an individual must involve aiming to improve certain cognitive capacities we show to be essential to moral flourishing. After developing these points in some detail, and their implication for Savulescu's & Persson's proposal, we conclude by outlining some positive suggestions.
在最近的一系列著作中,朱利安·萨夫勒斯库和英格玛·珀尔松坚持认为,鉴于道德败坏的少数人能够轻易造成不可逆转的破坏,(i)目前严格意义上的认知生物增强风险太大,而(ii)道德生物增强在道德上可能是必要的(而且迫在眉睫)。本文旨在表明,萨夫勒斯库和珀尔松提出的提议依赖于几个关于认知增强和道德增强作为不同目标的可分离性的有问题的假设。具体而言,我们认为,一旦清楚地认识到旨在对个体进行认知增强在某种程度上需要旨在实现某些我们认为对认知繁荣至关重要的道德善,萨夫勒斯库和珀尔松的规范性论证的基础就会瓦解;相反,旨在对个体进行道德增强必然涉及旨在提高某些我们认为对道德繁荣至关重要的认知能力。在详细阐述了这些观点及其对萨夫勒斯库和珀尔松提议的影响之后,我们最后概述了一些积极的建议。