The Problem of Human Enhancement and Education For Human Dignity: Comparison of Discussions between Honneth and Fukuyama about “Recognition”

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 165-189
Author(s):  
Nayoung Choi
Author(s):  
Franco Cortese

This chapter addresses concerns that the development and proliferation of Human Enhancement Technologies (HET) will be (a) dehumanizing and a threat to human dignity and (b) a threat to our autonomy and sovereignty as individuals. Contrarily, HET can be shown to constitute the most effective foreseeable means of increasing the autonomy and sovereignty of individual members of society. Furthermore, this chapter elaborates the position that the use of HET exemplifies—and indeed even intensifies—our most human capacity and faculty, namely the desire for increased self-determination (i.e., control over the determining circumstances and conditions of our own selves and lives), which is referred to as the will toward self-determination. Based upon this position, arguably, the use of HET bears fundamental ontological continuity with the human condition in general and with the historically ubiquitous will toward self-determination in particular as it is today and has been in the past. HET will not be a dehumanizing force, but will rather serve to increase the very capacity and characteristic that characterizes us as human more accurately than anything else.


2011 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Vallor ◽  

Through an analysis of the appeals to human dignity used by bioconservatives to criticize transhumanist proposals for aggressive development of human enhancement technologies, I identify an implicit tension within such appeals that renders them internally incoherent and ultimately unpersuasive. However, I point the way to a more compelling objection to radical human enhancement available to bioconservatives, a version of the argument from hubris that employs an Aristotelian account of prudential virtue in order to challenge the normative content of the liberal transhumanist vision. The vulnerability of the transhumanist project to this argument is underscored by Ortega y Gasset’s critique of technological mass culture, in which he suggests that humans may increasingly lack the prudential virtues needed to identify and authentically choose those ends worthy of technological pursuit.


2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-120
Author(s):  
J Francisco Lobo

This article revisits the cutting-edge ‘capture or kill’ debate in the field of IHL, offering a fresh outlook that reconstrues the notion of ‘human enhancement of soldiers’ from a normative standpoint. After sketching the debate and inquiring into its root causes, the article analyses the interplay between military necessity and humanity, in order to endow the latter with its own content drawing on the notions of military honour and human dignity. Finally, it presents a proposal for the moral education of soldiers during military training. Cet article revisite le débat moderne du « capturer ou tuer » dans le domaine du droit international humanitaire. Il propose une vision nouvelle qui réinterprète d’un point de vue normatif la notion d’amélioration des capacités humaines à des fins militaires. Après avoir initié le débat et recherché son origine, l’auteur analyse l’interaction entre nécessité militaire et humanité, afin de doter cette dernière de son propre contenu, en se basant sur les notions d’honneur militaire et de dignité humaine. Enfin, l’auteur formule une proposition d’éducation morale des militaires au cours de leur entraînement. In dit artikel wordt het toonaangevende debat over “gevangennemen of doden” op het gebied van het IHR herbekeken en wordt aan de hand van een nieuw perspectief het begrip 'mensverbetering van soldaten' geherinterpreteerd vanuit een normatief standpunt. Na het debat kort te hebben beschreven en de diepere oorzaken ervan te hebben onderzocht, analyseert het artikel de wisselwerking tussen militaire noodzaak en menselijkheid, om aan dit laatste begrip een eigen inhoud te geven die gebaseerd is op de begrippen militaire eer en menselijke waardigheid. Ten slotte wordt een voorstel gedaan voor de morele opvoeding van soldaten tijdens de militaire opleiding. El artículo aborda una vez más el afilado debate en torno a “captura o mata” en el ámbito del DIH, ofreciendo una visión renovada que vuelve a construir el concepto de “Realce Humano de los Soldados” desde una nueva perspectiva normativa. Tras examinar los presupuestos del debate e indagar sobre sus causas remotas, el artículo analiza la interacción entre necesidad militar y humanidad, con la finalidad de profundizar en esto último partiendo de la base de los conceptos de honor militar y dignidad humana. Por último, se presenta una propuesta a seguir en la educación moral de los soldados durante el periodo de formación. Questo articolo rivisita l’innovativo dibattito sul tema della ‘Cattura o Uccisione’ nel diritto internazionale umanitario, offrendo una nuova prospettiva che ricostruisce il concetto della ‘valorizzazione umana dei soldati’ da un punto di vista normativo. Dopo aver delineato il dibattito e indagato le sue cause alla radice, l’articolo analizza l’interazione tra necessità militare e umanità, al fine di dotare quest’ultima di elementi propri, attingendo alle nozioni di onore militare e dignità umana. Infine, presenta una proposta per l’educazione morale dei soldati durante l’addestramento militare. Dieser Artikel nimmt die brandaktuelle „gefangen nehmen oder töten“-Debatte im Bereich des humanitären Völkerrechts erneut unter die Lupe und bietet eine neue Perspektive, die den Begriff „Verbesserung der menschlichen Fähigkeiten für Militärzwecke“ aus normativem Standpunkt rekonstruiert. Nach einer Skizzierung der Debatte und einer Untersuchung ihrer Ursachen analysiert der Artikel das Zusammenspiel zwischen militärischer Notwendigkeit und Menschlichkeit, um letzterer einen eigenen Inhalt zu geben, der sich auf die Begriffe militärische Ehre und Menschenwürde stützt. Schließlich legt er einen Vorschlag zur moralischen Erziehung der Soldaten während der militärischen Ausbildung vor.


2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dónal P. O’Mathúna

Author(s):  
Omar M. Abdullah ◽  
Hardev Kaur

In 20th century and beyond, humans have witnessed numerous advances in technology which have opened new horizons. Science and technology redesigned human life exponentially and humans always search for a more technological world and hence more comfort and ease. As such, going past human confinement could be accessible through a few changes in human form, but these changes posture a contentious point since people grow into being more reliant on technology in order to execute their desires and needs. What will happen to humanness and humanity? What will happen to their moralities and behaviors? In this manner, technological development could have both promising and discouraging pictures within the human mind. The current study cites Daniel H. Wilson’s Amped (2013) to discuss the clash of views between Transhumanists and Bioconservatives. Transhumanists believe that human improvement advances should be made broadly accessible, where people could adopt these innovations and apply them to themselves to have a better life. In particular, bioconservatives consider human enhancement technologies as ‘dehumanizing’ for these technologies might weaken human dignity and affect something that is profoundly valuable about being human. As such, Posthuman theory is consulted in order to analyze the ethical and moral concerns of human enhancement technology in Wilson’s Amped.  The findings are summed in the importance of ethics in any kind of enhancement and conclude that the trustworthy source is a priority to ensure success.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolus Boromeus Kusmaryant

Human enhancement is one of the hottest bioethical debates because the two parts have strong foundation on their arguments. Human enhancement is both naturally and technologically. Many people agree upon natural human enhancement because it is part of human dignity. Technological human enhancement spark debates pros and cons. We will learn from Jean-Jacques Rousseau to inspire our discussion. We will use Rousseau’s famous statement, “the faculty of self-improvement” in developing argument to arrive in the final conclusion


2021 ◽  
pp. 213-227
Author(s):  
Pierpaolo Donati

AbstractThis chapter examines how the processes of human enhancement that have been brought about by the digital revolution (including AI and robotics, besides ICTs) have given rise to new social identities and relationships. The central question consists in asking how the Digital Technological Matrix, understood as a cultural code that supports artificial intelligence and related technologies, causes a hybridisation between the human and the non-human, and to what extent such hybridisation promotes or puts human dignity at risk. Hybridisation is defined here as entanglements and interchanges between digital machines, their ways of operating, and human elements in social practices. The issue is not whether AI or robots can assume human-like characteristics, but how they interact with humans and affect their social identities and relationships, thereby generating a new kind of society.


Author(s):  
Karolina Kudlek

AbstractA pertinent concern in the human enhancement debate is that human enhancement technologies (HET) are intrinsically bad and, hence, morally impermissible. This article evaluates the related claims about the intrinsic badness of HET by looking into philosophical theories of intrinsic value. It investigates how well-established conceptions of intrinsic value map onto typical bioconservative arguments about HET's intrinsic badness. Three predominant variants of these arguments are explored and found wanting: (i) HET are intrinsically bad owing to their unnaturalness; (ii) the pursuit of HET reveals intrinsically bad character (“the desire for mastery”); and (iii) HET will necessarily undermine intrinsically valuable things (e.g., human dignity). My analysis shows that the debate on intrinsic value places serious constraints on claims about the intrinsic badness of HET. More specifically, the analysis shows that bioconservative arguments are, for the most part, inconsistent, misconceived, and overly speculative. Enhancement interventions cannot be bearers of intrinsic value on any of its plausible understandings, and, even if we could grant such a possibility, there are no compelling reasons to presume that the intrinsic value of HET would be necessarily negative. As a result, claims regarding their moral impermissibility are unwarranted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document