TPQs (11/19) Group 3 Posts, Group 4 Responds

[Becko Copenhaver]

[jswe...@lclark.edu]

Where are the questions?

[epro...@lclark.edu]

The article talks about the concepts of human therapy versus human enhancement.  It describes human enhancement as “boosting our capabilities beyond the species-typical level or statistically normal range of functioning for an individual.”  However, it seems to me that the most popular forms of human enhancement are intended to bring individuals closer to an idealistic but realistic human.  For example, many people get cosmetic surgery to look like a more attractive more socially accepted person they know, or drink alcohol to take on a more outgoing personality.  To those who oppose human enhancement but accept human therapy, is there a big moral difference in trying to model ones self after the ideal human form versus something with inhuman qualities?   

 

[estanbro]

I think the major difference is between the human enhancement that you mention, which attempts to bring individuals towards an idealistic, but realistic human being, and human enhancement aimed at pushing an individual beyond "realistic" terms. Getting cosmetic surgery or drinking alcohol is not a huge human enhancement issue because it does not take any individuals beyond "realistic" human limits. No matter how good the cosmetic surgery is, you will still come out as a human, probably no better looking than most celebrities. But if you had a chip implanted in your brain that allowed you to have memory 5 times better than any other human on the Earth, you would be pushing beyond normal, realistic human limits. Thus, at this current time, there are not an overwhelming amount of human enhancement techniques that go beyond the normal, or push realistic limits. But I think the point of the argument is that they are just around the corner. With technology advancing exponentially, these issues will be at the forefront very shortly as new human enhancement techniques arise (your limitless pills, if you will).

[sluh...@lclark.edu]

To what degree can we say that human enhancement as a categorical imperative has any value? Is human enhancement a necessary step in the development of human civilization or is it perhaps an over zealous attempt to further separate ourselves from the limitations of the slow, nature oriented, slowing moving progression of evolution?    

[jswe...@lclark.edu]

I think there is great potential in terms of advancement of the human race, and over all improvement of society.  However, with great power comes great responsibility, and I don't see humans as responsible.  I fear for military application.  Look at the discovery of thermal imaging.  It's an incredible development with unlimited possibilities, and it's primary use soldiers hunting down lesser equipped soldiers in the dark.

I don't think we're ready.

[jswe...@lclark.edu]

[gru...@lclark.edu]

There are some incredibly powerful implications for human efficiency in human technological engineering that could at least be experimented with while avoiding any destructive consequences. In general, approaching and developing this subject does require those in charge to be very responsible in their reasoning. It is concerning if these innovations are applied malevolently (in government, war, etc.), which is why their development requires supervision. Integrating technology into human anatomy may, however, simply allow people to do the human thing better. If developed and engaged cautiously, it could maximize time efficiency and the achievability of people's aspirations. Implementing these advances in technology should not imply an entire reordering of societal aims and ends. Rather, there would be a significant proportion of people aiming to reach their perspective of the "species-typical level," as well as some interested in expanding towards those 'inhuman qualities.' Aiming for the inhuman qualities would not necessarily be for self-interested purposes. Furthermore, it is important to remember technology is a product of humans and integrating it into our anatomy is not necessarily a far step from our general use of tools. We are naturally inclined to use tools as a race and integrating technology into our anatomy may be a reasonable act of adjusting our use of tools to our advances in creating them.

[co...@lclark.edu]

This is a tricky and really interesting question.

On one hand, it seems that Kantianism's categorical imperative would absolutely support human enhancement if it meant that we were better equipped to cultivate our rational and autonomous wills.  In fact, Kantianism's view that humans are not intrinsically valuable (only "humanity" ie. rational autonomous will is) and consequences are not the foremost concern seem to strengthen its support of enhancement.

However, on the other hand, when human enhancement is viewed pragmatically, Kantianism's support of it becomes less clear. This is because Kantianism puts a heavy emphasis on epistemic humility (this can be seen in the kantian commitment to the possibility of redemption in even the worst people).

If we could be certain that human enhancement really would improve our wills, then kanitianism seems to support it. But because we are not sure. Or, more specifically, not able to be sure. Kantianism seems to suggest that we must be very hesitant and skeptical of these enhancements.

[nse...@lclark.edu]

To what degree can we say that human enhancement as a categorical imperative has any value? Is human enhancement a necessary step in the development of human civilization or is it perhaps an over zealous attempt to further separate ourselves from the limitations of the slow, nature oriented, slowing moving progression of evolution?   

If we accept that human enhancement is more beneficial than it is harmful, it appears that a Kantian would be in favor of human enhancement technology as long as doing so did not require treating other rational autonomous wills as mere means instead of ends. Human enhancement technology that would, say make someone immortal, might be the epitome of fulfilling the Categorical Imperative of self-preservation. On the other hand, using technology to achieve that end seems morally questionable.
I don't think that human enhancement as a categorical imperative and it being an attempt to distance ourselves from natural evolutionary processes are mutually exclusive. Even if it is our categorical imperative to develop these technologies, that does not necessarily contradict the idea that we want to distance ourselves from the slow process of evolution. Human therapy technology, then, also distances us as humans from the slow process of natural selection by saving the lives of those who, in a therapy and enhancement free world (nature), would have had no other choice but to accept their tragic situations.