儒家為什麼反對超人類主義？

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. The concept of human enhancement is a key to understanding transhumanism. According to Confucian ethics, the supervision of human enhancement technology is vital because we are facing the reasonable expectation of achieving “the unity of heaven and man.” (The idea of harmony between man and nature is not exclusive to Confucianism; it can be found in other schools of thought in the pre-Qin dynasty period, especially the philosophy of Taoism. However, the idea is uniquely expressed and developed in Confucianism.) Furthermore, human enhancement makes people unable to “settle in their place.” Therefore, Confucianism cannot accept it.

再議儒家對超人類主義的態度

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. Superhumanism or posthumanism has become our reality. To deal with the resulting humanitarian dilemma, we can consult the abundant theoretical resources provided by Confucianism. Confucius's “The Gentleman is No Vessel”, Zengzi's important concept of filial piety, and Mencius' understanding of human nature contribute valuable theoretical perspectives for reflection on the real-world consequences of transhumanism.

我們該如何存在？——關於超人類主義的若干批判

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. Transhumanism banishes the body from being, which leads to the separation of technology and virtue. In the Confucian view, the body is the symbiosis of technology and virtue, human relations and politics. We can use the notions of “benevolence” and Tao in Confucian ethics to criticize transhumanism. The fundamental problem involved in the debate between Confucianism and transhumanism concerns how human beings define themselves. Confucianists believe that human beings cannot and should not violate certain fundamental restrictions and principles presented by the universe. We should continue to think about what these fundamental restrictions and principles should be, and whether they are likely to be breached with technological progress.

儒家視角下的超人類主義反思——如何監管我們的後人類未來？

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. 隨著高科技操縱人類生命的潛力日益明顯，超人類主義運動也愈加受到學界重視，相關研究飛速增長，但尚缺乏一種基於儒家視角的系統研究。本文試圖表明儒家視角對反思超人類主義具有不可替代的重要性，不僅因為它可以幫助我們更清晰、更深刻地把握超人類主義的影響和風險，而且因為它可以在超人類主義的技術主義圖景之外，提供想像和監管我們後人類未來的另一種可能性。具體而言，本研究致力於在一種隱含比較視域下展開儒家的批判性視角，從儒家“天人合一”觀念出發，闡釋儒家為什麼不能接受超人類主義，並嘗試探索儒家反對超人類主義的倫理理由與西方生物保守主義的同異之處。由此，本文嘗試將不同文化來源的思想帶入對話中，既是通過它們分歧之處，更是要通過它們共同關懷的議題，來更好地思考，超人類主義計劃對人類社會、對人類未來意味著什麼，並回答“如何監管我們的後人類未來”這一至關重要的問題。 As the potential of high technology to manipulate human life becomes increasingly evident, the transhumanist movement is receiving greater scholarly attention, and the number of related research projects is growing exponentially. However, systematic research from a Confucian perspective is still lacking. This paper attempts to demonstrate the unique value of a Confucian perspective in reflecting on transhumanism. Confucian thought can not only help us grasp the implications and risks of transhumanism with clarity and depth but also offer alternative possibilities for imagining as well as regulating our posthuman future beyond the technocratic picture of transhumanism. Specifically, this paper develops a critical Confucian perspective in an implicitly comparative context to explain why Confucianism cannot accept transhumanism （due to the Confucian notion of “the unity of heaven and man”（天人合一）and to explore the similarities and differences between Confucian and bio-conservative perspectives on transhumanism. I thereby bring ideas from different cultural sources into dialogue to form a better understanding of what transhumanism means for human society and its future, and to answer the crucial question of how to regulate our posthuman future.

善治視角下的人類胚胎研究政策的制訂

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. 人類胚胎研究的“十四天規則”作為一條重要的倫理原則已實施四十餘年，被很多國家立法採納。近年來，隨著胚胎技術的飛速發展，科學家們對“十四天規則”提出了新的挑戰，也是對相關的倫理研究和公共政策的制訂提出的挑戰，即我們該怎樣看待人類胚胎研究的公共政策？Ana S litis等在〈新興人體胚胎研究技術、十四天規則和胚胎的特殊地位〉（馬修斯、洛伊、伊爾蒂斯2021）一文中鼓勵科學家從促進善治的角度來看待人類胚胎和胚狀體的研究政策，但並未深入探討其原因和意義，本文主要從善治的特徵出發通過對人類胚胎研究政策制訂中如何實現的探討而對該文的上述核心觀點進行回應。 In the article “Emerging Human Embryo Research Technologies, the 14-day Rule, and the Special Status of the Embryo,” one of the authors' core aims is to encourage scientists to look at human embryo research policy from the perspective of promoting good governance. Starting with the characteristics of good governance, this paper responds to Iltis et al. by discussing how to realize good governance in the formulation of human embryo research policy.

態度、原則與方法：儒家對後人類未來監管可能的貢獻

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. Human beings are facing problems entailed by the development and application of human enhancement technology. Confucianism and transhumanism respond to these problems in fundamentally different ways. Confucianism calls for a “careful attitude”, makes use of an “adaptable method”, and bases on the principle that technology is a tool for human continuity and development. Such an attitude, principle and method may represent the contribution of Confucianism to our supervision of Posthuman future.

“超人類主義”是主體形而上學的新形式

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. Transhumanism is a contemporary form of Western “subject metaphysics” that combines the dual elements of Cartesianism and Nietzsche's “metaphysics of will.” The essence of Eros is the human desire for totality, which is interlinked with the secret desire for today's “human enhancement” technology. The Confucian idea of “the unity of heaven and man”（天人合一）can solve many problems in the debate between biological conservatism and bioprogressivism. The ideological foundation of this idea in Laozi's and Zhuangzi's thought should be taken seriously. Recognition of human limitations is an important aspect of traditional Confucian—Taoist wisdom, but human enhancement technology is in essence a tool for “excessive reduction”.

人類自然的身體性狀是不應被技術改造的嗎？

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. Human beings always try to transcend their limitations. Emerging technologies provide a set of powerful tools that promise to significantly improve human performance, stimulating the desire of some technical experts to transform the human body. Against this backdrop, superhumanism has come into being in today's society and is flourishing. Superhumanism has been criticized by some Chinese scholars on the basis of traditional Chinese thought. Their criticism of superhumanism is a difficult task that involves multi-level reflection on human nature, technology, and value. I argue that for the issue of superhumanism, theoretical innovation is more important than continuing to invoke traditional thought.

論人體胚胎研究“軟法”修改之正當性

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. This commentary briefly discusses the substantive and procedural justifications for amending the longstanding 14-day rule, a soft-law limitation on the culturing of human embryos. The 14-day rule was established on the basis of general recognition of the human embryo's special status, accompanied by widespread public conversation and engagement. In principle, amending this rule would require the same substantive and procedural justifications. However, such justifications were absent prior to the lifting of the rule by the ISSCR in its 2021 guidelines. This article also discusses the value and importance of the 14-day rule to the development of human embryo research in the last three decades. Discarding the rule without the proper substantive and procedural justifications is likely to damage public trust and confidence in future human embryo research.

放棄人類胚胎“14天限制” 的倫理反駁

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract also in English. This article explores prominent arguments in favor of and against extending the current 14-day statutory limit on the maintenance of human embryos. I discuss the history of the 14-day limit and the reasons behind the decision to opt for a compromise between competing moral views. I then argue that the ISSCR's guidelines for extending the 14-day limit are not a valuable tool, despite their potential to contribute scientific knowledge. The importance of respecting the 14-day rule should be acknowledged by ethics committees in the current research ethics climate of mainland China.