TPQs (11/21) Group 4 Posts, Group 1 Responds

[Becko Copenhaver]

[co...@lclark.edu]

Intuitively, human enhancement is very unsettling to me. However, neither of the two articles we  read seem offer a convincing explanation as to why. In fact, Sandel's article made his own anti-enhancement argument weaker in my mind. The way Sandel frames the potential negative effects of enhancement come off as deeply disingenuous. He appears to disguise knee-jerk conservatism & rosy-eyed golden ageism in superficial humanism.

To be sure, I think there will be huge & unforeseeable negative effects if humans take up wide-scale enhancement. But I doubt the biggest problem will be an increase in the "myth of the self made man." Simply because it is already so prevalent. Psychological & ethical egoism are enormously popular among people (and political parties). And myths of Exceptionalism act as a foundation for superiority complexes in everything from school spirit to nationalist fervor. 

If anything, wouldn't enhancements serve to reduce this hubris? If talents are completely mutable through mechanical augmentation, how could anyone claim personal superiority based on them? Furthermore, if people really do think that their abilities came from chance like Sandel suggests, would enhancement change this outlook in a meaningful way?

[beaub]

I think that the notion of superiority as a motivation for seeking enhancement is an interesting one. It seems that this is a common reason for seeking treatment, such as eyeglasses, as Harris notes in the beginning of his essay. Human enhancement could be thought of as just another outlet for exerting power and superiority. Just as the wealthy can afford better health care, more nutritionally balanced food, to live in non-polluted and safe areas, etc., so could they also afford enhancements that would improve their physical and mental states. So, is human enhancement above and beyond these traditional means in which the wealthy assert their affluence?

Also, it seems imperative that we think about at what point it remains enhancement and what point it becomes an unquestioned and integrated part of our bodily existence. For example, if, say, 95% of the population is embedded with a piece of technology at birth, then would that be considered enhancement, or would future generations take such technology for granted as part of our bodily existence? We could think about this with curent examples such as birth control, which could definitely be considered a form of technology that many portions of our population have come to take for granted and are heavily integrated with our bodily functions. 

[vmco...@lclark.edu]

I agree that Sandel's argument did not seem very convincing. By trying to illuminate the fact that humans would become "self-made" does not hit home to me the way I believe he was trying to portray. In general, he mentioned too often the objection of his theory relating to God, while trying to refute that you didn't have to look at it this way. But it seemed like he was nearly saying it is a good way to look at it, which was a downfall on his part. To answer your question, I don't believe that enhancements would be completely leveling the playing field for humans. I say this because we are already genetically very similar to one another. Yes, there are students who find homework easier, and athletes that are naturally born to jump much higher. But to assume that eugenic mutations would make everyone completely "equal", in that sense, seems to be far stretched. Young children and adolescents, along with adults, are still going to try their best to further their already "better" genes if they were mechanically enhanced. So I think we would just all have a better starting point, but I do not believe this would omit personal superiority. There would still be the MVP on a team, because someone will strive more than others. Overall, Sandel's argument was surprisingly unconvincing, and maybe if he were to have elaborated more (or better yet made more valid points) us readers could have been swayed to believe his opinion.

[estanbro]

Sandel's "Case Against Perfection" is the first argument against human enhancement that I really agree with. Since we began our discussions about human enhancement, I have argued for enhancement, defending it against all the objections we have seen. I have argued that rather than being unfair, human enhancement actually levels the playing field. In class, I gave the example of leveling the field for athletes. I argued that no matter how badly someone wants to play in the NBA for example, it likely won't happen if the person is not tall (let's say 6' 5" for the sake of this argument). Someone that is 5' 9" may work much harder than the tall person, but hard work likely will not pay off, as the 5' 9" person is likely just too short to play in the NBA. Similar arguments can be made about those of us born extremely fast, athletic, etc. No matter how bad you want it, and no matter how hard you work, you almost always need a "born set of skills" to make it to elite levels, like the NBA. However, if through human enhancement, we could make every basketball player 6' 5", the playing field would be leveled, and competition would be more fair, as those that worked hard would make it over those that didn't. Rather than height and speed for example, someone that worked on their jump shot the most would likely be the best, because everyone would be the same height, etc.

Sandel makes the argument that this takes away from natural gifts though. Those of us not born tall won't play in the NBA, and thus NBA players will be players with natural basketball skills, like height. Everyone has skills individual to them, and that is what makes us unique. While someone may be great at basketball, someone else may be a math whiz. So the argument becomes this: should we use human enhancement to level the playing field, so everyone has a fair chance to do whatever it is they most want to do with their life? Or do we allow natural gifts to put barriers on what we can and can't do, that is, to allow natural gifts to give us structure in what we can/ought to do with our life?

[nse...@lclark.edu]

Harris clearly articulates that it is faulty reasoning to argue that a technology ought to be available to everyone for it to be permissible for anyone to use it. To some extent, this seems fair, especially from a utilitarian perspective. However, we see that there are some situations where there will not be enough resources or technology to help everyone who might benefit from that technology when Harris describes the organs for transplant in UK being impermissible until there are also enough organs for transplant in India. Would a utilitarian agree that it is permissible to go through with the transplants in the UK even though those transplants are not possible in India because there are simply not enough donors to transplant into the hundred thousand patients in need?

It seems that it would be morally permissible, even though it might bring about a lot of unhappiness for Indians, it looks like a situation where a total net happiness might not be possible, but performing the transplants in the UK might at least bring about some happiness for some individuals in the population. Another thing that then comes to mind is that a utilitarian might argue that it makes no difference whether the organs are given to UK residents or Indians. What is the intuitive response to using all of the organs for UK patients? Is it not the responsibility of the UK to help Indians who need organ transplants just as much if not more badly than the patients in the UK?

[gru...@lclark.edu]

Harris states in his section on Positional Goods, "The morally justifiable enhancements owe their moral justification to the fact that they make lives better, not to the fact that they make some lives better than others." I agree with this approach towards promoting individual welfare. It aligns with the distinction between fairness and equality and that it is normal and natural for social structures to possess inequalities amongst people while maintaining fairness. It also goes to say that many people pursuing their own development and sophistication have an ultimate end of furthering others. Harris' "Human Enhancement" properly empowers the agency of the individual and acknowledges that the ideal function of human enhancement technology would be subsidiary to the function of an individual's ability to reason. Sandel's "Case Against Perfection" seems to stray towards envisioning the application of human enhancement as one that would strip individuals of their "RAW" and make them selfishly driven. He says, "The alive we are to the chance nature of our lot, the more reason we have to share our fate with others." This is in reference to insurance policies and our unpredictable futures encouraging everyone to contribute to social welfare. Do people think human enhancement technology must be this manipulative, overwhelming influence that distorts our "RAW?" Why might a decision to undergo human technological enhancement make someone more responsible for her fate? Is it misconstrued to perceive such an operation as "human mastery," considering technology is nothing more than a human creation that still leaves us with many imperfections? There would likely remain plenty of imperfections in our adjustment to and application of acquired internal technology.

[hwhi...@lclark.edu]

I find Harris' argument regarding the universalization of human enhancement very intriguing. His description of positional advantage seems compelling against his own argument in my mind. When regarding human enhancement through the Kantian perspective I see the positional advantage generated by most human enhancers to be a clear violation of the formula of universal law. If one's maxim was "use performance enhancers in order to gain a leg up against the competition (a positional advantage)" this maxim is a contradiction in conception. Sandel offers a strong argument about the disregard towards virtuous action that is caused by human enhancement. How might Utilitarianism treat human enhancement, especially that which is simply of positional advantage?

The discussion of positional advantage makes me think of a possible thought experiment (and I'm not sure how effective it would be). If all humans were provided the same enhancement of some sort (say cognitive enhancing drugs) that would have no negative side effects, would this be right to employ? Mind you, the drugs equally increase all users capabilities giving no one a positional advantage and simply increasing the everyone's cognitive capabilities. To me this still evokes the "yuck" factor, but I can find no rational moral argument why, except a virtue based argument. Is there possibly any other moral theory that could explain this feeling?

[Ian Dechow]

If the advantaged brings about happiness for others then that is good, if it doesn't its bad or so says utilitarianism.  However the advantage is not the cause the advantaged is.

Going to the dentist might provoke the yuck factor for some, yet they still go, and are better off for it.

I fail to see why its the governments job to provide the organs, in Iran it is legal to sell your kidney, there is know one there wanting for a Kidney.  If someone want to buy an enhancement, it seems to be know ones business but theirs.  What right do you have to tell someone they can't get plastic surgery, you don't so why would you have the right to tell someone that they cannot take brain pills, in both instances the individual is just increasing her moral luck.