Institute of Ethics, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Bioethics. 2021 Jan;35(1):15-22. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12791. Epub 2020 Jul 22.
In the debates regarding the ethics of human enhancement, proponents have found it difficult to refute the concern, voiced by certain bioconservatives, that cognitive enhancement violates the autonomy of the enhanced. However, G. Owen Schaefer, Guy Kahane and Julian Savulescu have attempted not only to avoid autonomy-based bioconservative objections, but to argue that cognition-enhancing biomedical interventions can actually enhance autonomy. In response, this paper has two aims: firstly, to explore the limits of their argument; secondly, and more importantly, to develop a more complete understanding of autonomy and its relation to cognitive enhancement. By drawing a distinction between the capacity for autonomy and the exercise and achievement of autonomy, and by exploring the possible effects of cognitive enhancement on both competence and authenticity conditions for autonomy, the paper identifies and explains which dimensions of autonomy can and cannot, in principle, be enhanced via direct cognitive interventions. This allows us to draw conclusions regarding the limits of cognitive enhancement as a means for enhancing autonomy.
在关于人类增强伦理的争论中,支持者发现很难反驳某些生物保守主义者的担忧,即认知增强侵犯了被增强者的自主权。然而,G. 欧文·谢弗、盖伊·卡恩和朱利安·萨夫列斯库不仅试图避免基于自主权的生物保守主义反对意见,而且还认为认知增强的生物医学干预实际上可以增强自主权。为此,本文有两个目的:首先,探讨他们论点的局限性;其次,更重要的是,更全面地理解自主权及其与认知增强的关系。本文通过区分自主权的能力与自主权的行使和实现,并通过探索认知增强对自主权的能力和真实性条件的可能影响,确定并解释了哪些自主权维度原则上可以通过直接的认知干预来增强,哪些不能。这使我们能够就认知增强作为增强自主权的一种手段的局限性得出结论。