Disability, Enhancement, and Flourishing.

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-11-21 DOI:10.1093/jmp/jhac018
Jason T Eberl
{"title":"Disability, Enhancement, and Flourishing.","authors":"Jason T Eberl","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhac018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent debate among bioethicists concerns the potential to enhance human beings' physical or cognitive capacities by means of genetic, pharmacological, cybernetic, or surgical interventions. Between \"transhumanists,\" who argue for unreserved enhancement of human capabilities, and \"bioconservatives,\" who warn against any non-therapeutic manipulation of humanity's natural condition, lie those who support limited forms of enhancement for the sake of individual and collective human flourishing. Many scholars representing these views also share a concern over the status and interests of human beings with various types of cognitive and physical disabilities, some of which may be ameliorable by enhancement interventions. The question addressed in this paper is whether valuing the enhancement of human capabilities may be reconciled with valuing the existence and phenomenological experiences of human beings with various disabilities. Can we value enhanced capabilities without disvaluing those whose capabilities fall below a defined threshold of \"normal function\"? Furthermore, if certain forms of disability, particularly cognitive disabilities, negatively impact one's flourishing, could the enhancement of one's cognitive capacities through biotechnological means enhance one's flourishing.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhac018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Recent debate among bioethicists concerns the potential to enhance human beings' physical or cognitive capacities by means of genetic, pharmacological, cybernetic, or surgical interventions. Between "transhumanists," who argue for unreserved enhancement of human capabilities, and "bioconservatives," who warn against any non-therapeutic manipulation of humanity's natural condition, lie those who support limited forms of enhancement for the sake of individual and collective human flourishing. Many scholars representing these views also share a concern over the status and interests of human beings with various types of cognitive and physical disabilities, some of which may be ameliorable by enhancement interventions. The question addressed in this paper is whether valuing the enhancement of human capabilities may be reconciled with valuing the existence and phenomenological experiences of human beings with various disabilities. Can we value enhanced capabilities without disvaluing those whose capabilities fall below a defined threshold of "normal function"? Furthermore, if certain forms of disability, particularly cognitive disabilities, negatively impact one's flourishing, could the enhancement of one's cognitive capacities through biotechnological means enhance one's flourishing.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
残疾、增强和繁荣。
最近生物伦理学家之间的争论关注的是通过基因、药理学、控制论或外科干预手段来增强人类身体或认知能力的潜力。在主张毫无保留地增强人类能力的“超人类主义者”和反对对人类自然状态进行任何非治疗性操纵的“生物保守主义者”之间,有些人支持为了个人和集体的繁荣而进行有限形式的增强。代表这些观点的许多学者也对各种类型的认知和身体残疾的人类的地位和利益表示关注,其中一些可以通过增强干预来改善。本文讨论的问题是,重视人类能力的增强是否可以与重视各种残疾人类的存在和现象学经验相协调。我们能在不贬低那些能力低于定义的“正常功能”阈值的情况下重视增强的能力吗?此外,如果某些形式的残疾,特别是认知残疾,会对一个人的繁荣产生负面影响,那么通过生物技术手段提高一个人的认知能力是否会促进一个人的繁荣呢?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: This bimonthly publication explores the shared themes and concerns of philosophy and the medical sciences. Central issues in medical research and practice have important philosophical dimensions, for, in treating disease and promoting health, medicine involves presuppositions about human goals and values. Conversely, the concerns of philosophy often significantly relate to those of medicine, as philosophers seek to understand the nature of medical knowledge and the human condition in the modern world. In addition, recent developments in medical technology and treatment create moral problems that raise important philosophical questions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy aims to provide an ongoing forum for the discussion of such themes and issues.
期刊最新文献
A Defense of the Obligation to Keep Promises to the Dead. Why Moral Bioenhancement Cannot Reliably Produce Virtue. Impairment Arguments, Interests, and Circularity. Disability and Achievement: A Reply to Campbell, Nyholm, and Walter. Organ Donation by the Imminently Dead: Addressing the Organ Shortage and the Dead Donor Rule.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1