scholarly journals Human Enhancement for the Common Good—Using Neurotechnologies to Improve Eyewitness Memory

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 22-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anton Vedder ◽  
Laura Klaming
Author(s):  
Anetta Breczko

The paper discusses issues tied to technological progress in the field of medicine, with respect to the categories of: “interest of the individual”, “common good” and “public interest”. The author attempts to present potential moral and legal threats that can result from the application of the latest medical technologies. The paper points out fundamental problems related to technology, medicine, law, and ethics. The analysis performed by the author shows that the technological methods for “human enhancement” can yield great benefits not only from the standpoint of individual interests of patients, but also in the context of the common good and public interest. On the other hand, the transhumanist dreams of the “bionic man” (the “perfect man”) collide with the current global situation, related to the coronavirus pandemic. The noticeable inefficiency of the healthcare system in that respect breeds doubts whether it will be possible, in the short-term perspective, to push back diseases and postpone the moment of death. It is important for the public interest to be understood properly: as the embodiment of the common good (that is, as a kind of a common denominator for the society), and not as the instrument for the fulfilment of the particular goals of the ruling majority. The development of civilization must be based on the universal, common values developed in the European culture. Technological progress in medicine should be accompanied by rational debate on its social costs and by genuine assessment or risks and threats (in the individual, social, civilizationational and cultural dimensions). Such debate is indispensable for the common good.


2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Hauskeller

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-127
Author(s):  
Abdoulaye Sounaye

Unexpectedly, one of the marking features of democratization in Niger has been the rise of a variety of Islamic discourses. They focus on the separation between religion and the state and, more precisely, the way it is manifested through the French model of laïcité, which democratization has adopted in Niger. For many Muslim actors, laïcité amounts to a marginalization of Islamic values and a negation of Islam. This article present three voices: the Collaborators, the Moderates, and the Despisers. Each represents a trend that seeks to influence the state’s political and ideological makeup. Although the ulama in general remain critical vis-à-vis the state’s political and institutional transformation, not all of them reject the principle of the separation between religion and state. The Collaborators suggest cooperation between the religious authority and the political one, the Moderates insist on the necessity for governance to accommodate the people’s will and visions, and the Despisers reject the underpinning liberalism that voids religious authority and demand a total re-Islamization. I argue that what is at stake here is less the separation between state and religion than the modality of this separation and its impact on religious authority. The targets, tones, and justifications of the discourses I explore are evidence of the limitations of a democratization project grounded in laïcité. Thus in place of a secular democratization, they propose a conservative democracy based on Islam and its demands for the realization of the common good.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document