Research Centre 'Normative Orders', Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Bioethics. 2022 Sep;36(7):794-801. doi: 10.1111/bioe.13040. Epub 2022 May 4.
This paper challenges the role individual autonomy has played in debates on moral neuroenhancement (MN). It shows how John Hyman's analysis of agency as consisting of functionally integrated dimensions allows us to reassess the impact of MN on practical agency. I discuss how MN affects what Hyman terms the four dimensions of agency: psychological, ethical, intellectual, and physical. Once we separate the different dimensions of agency, it becomes clear that many authors in the debate conflate the different dimensions in the concept they call 'autonomous agents'. They contend that, for example, reason-giving and previous autonomous acts are relevant to agency as such, when in fact they capture only one aspect of functionally integrated agency. This paper reconsiders MN in light of the functional integration of reason and emotions in practical agency. To illustrate the impact of MN on different aspects of agency, I consider examples from legal practice, which show that autonomy cannot be our sole focus when evaluating the moral implications of MN.
本文质疑了个体自主性在道德神经增强(MN)辩论中所扮演的角色。它展示了约翰·海曼(John Hyman)对能动性的分析,即能动性由功能上整合的维度组成,这使我们能够重新评估 MN 对实践能动性的影响。我讨论了 MN 如何影响海曼所谓的能动性的四个维度:心理、伦理、智力和身体。一旦我们将能动性的不同维度分开,就很明显,辩论中的许多作者将他们所谓的“自主代理人”这一概念中的不同维度混为一谈。他们认为,例如,给出理由和以前的自主行为与能动性本身有关,而实际上它们只捕捉到功能上整合的能动性的一个方面。本文根据实践能动性中理性和情感的功能整合重新考虑了 MN。为了说明 MN 对能动性不同方面的影响,我考虑了法律实践中的例子,这些例子表明,在评估 MN 的道德含义时,不能将自主性作为唯一关注点。