The debate between conservatism and progressivism of human enhancement ethics is essentially a debate between normative ethics and naturalistic ethics. Naturalistic ethics has a problem of "naturalistic fallacy", and normative ethics also has a problem of "normative paranoea". The former is a historical limitation of human cognitive ability which can be gradually solved with the development of science and technology, while the latter is a self-righteous positioning error of anthropocentrism. Therefore, normative ethics should give way to naturalistic ethics, and accordingly conservatism of human enhancement ethics should give way to progressivism. A naturalistic research approach is needed for human enhancement ethics. This naturalistic approach regards man as a living system that realizes its pursuit of balance through survival and development. Freedom is the pursuit of the balanced state of the living system, while survival and development are the process of the realizing of this pursuit. Equality is the fact that living systems are identical to other living systems and thus have equal influence in the higher systems of which they are composed. Democracy is a high-level system composed of living systems in which the dominant power is in the hands of most subsystems rather than a few. This as a whole constitutes a kind of naturalistic or systematic axiology.
| Published in | Science, Technology & Public Policy (Volume 4, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.stpp.20200402.12 |
| Page(s) | 54-59 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Human Enhancement Ethics, Normative Ethics, Naturalistic Ethics, System Axiology
| [1] | Isa, N. M., and M. F. H. S. Shuri, (2018). Ethical concerns about human genetic enhancement in the Malay science fiction novels. Science And Engineering Ethics 24 (1): 109-127. |
| [2] | Sandel, M. J. (2007). The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 86, 94. |
| [3] | Tolleneer, J., S. Sterckx, and P. Bonte, (2012). Athletic Enhancement, Human Nature and Ethics: Threats and Opportunities of Doping Technologies. New York: Springer, 196. |
| [4] | Moor, M., et al. (2013). “Transhumanist declaration”. In The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future. eds. M. More and V. M. Natasha, 54-55. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell. |
| [5] | Sharon, T. (2014). Human Nature in an Age of Biotechnology: The Case for Mediated Posthumanism. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer, 3. |
| [6] | Hayles, N. K. (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 84. |
| [7] | Wolbring, G. (2006). The unenhanced underclass. Media Development 53 (2): 30-45. |
| [8] | Kass, L. R. (2001). Preventing a brave new world: Why we should ban human cloning now. New republic (New York, N. Y.) 224 (21): 30-39. |
| [9] | Sandberg, A. (2013). “Morphological freedom - Why we not just want it, but need it”. In The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future. eds. M. More and V. M. Natasha, 56-64. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell. |
| [10] | Bailey, R. (2004). Transhumanism: the most dangerous idea? [On-line]. Available: http://reason.com/archives/2004/08/25/transhumanism-the-most-dangero (accessed April 2, 2020). |
| [11] | Hughes, J. (2002). Democratic Transhumanism 2.0 [On-line]. Available: http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/DemocraticTranshumanism.htm (accessed April 2, 2020). |
| [12] | Whitehead, A. N. (1948). Science and the Modern World. New York: The New American Library, pp. 96-106. |
| [13] | Laszlo, E. (1973). A systems philosophy of human values. Behavioral Science, 18 (4): 250–259. |
| [14] | Taylor, P. 1986. Respect for Nature, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 121-122. |
| [15] | Jiang, J. T. (2019). On the nature of moral from the perspective of systematic axiology. Legal System and Society, (05): 231-232+239. |
| [16] | Jiang, J. T. (2019). Study on the Marxist view of the essence of value from the perspective of systematic theory of value. The Science Education Article Collects, (04): 44-47. |
| [17] | Jiang, J. T. (2019). A system axiological interpretation and development of scientific socialistic values. New West, (09): 4-6. |
APA Style
Jingtao Jiang. (2020). A Naturalistic Approach of Human Enhancement Ethics. Science, Technology & Public Policy, 4(2), 54-59. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20200402.12
ACS Style
Jingtao Jiang. A Naturalistic Approach of Human Enhancement Ethics. Sci. Technol. Public Policy 2020, 4(2), 54-59. doi: 10.11648/j.stpp.20200402.12
AMA Style
Jingtao Jiang. A Naturalistic Approach of Human Enhancement Ethics. Sci Technol Public Policy. 2020;4(2):54-59. doi: 10.11648/j.stpp.20200402.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.stpp.20200402.12,
author = {Jingtao Jiang},
title = {A Naturalistic Approach of Human Enhancement Ethics},
journal = {Science, Technology & Public Policy},
volume = {4},
number = {2},
pages = {54-59},
doi = {10.11648/j.stpp.20200402.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20200402.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.stpp.20200402.12},
abstract = {The debate between conservatism and progressivism of human enhancement ethics is essentially a debate between normative ethics and naturalistic ethics. Naturalistic ethics has a problem of "naturalistic fallacy", and normative ethics also has a problem of "normative paranoea". The former is a historical limitation of human cognitive ability which can be gradually solved with the development of science and technology, while the latter is a self-righteous positioning error of anthropocentrism. Therefore, normative ethics should give way to naturalistic ethics, and accordingly conservatism of human enhancement ethics should give way to progressivism. A naturalistic research approach is needed for human enhancement ethics. This naturalistic approach regards man as a living system that realizes its pursuit of balance through survival and development. Freedom is the pursuit of the balanced state of the living system, while survival and development are the process of the realizing of this pursuit. Equality is the fact that living systems are identical to other living systems and thus have equal influence in the higher systems of which they are composed. Democracy is a high-level system composed of living systems in which the dominant power is in the hands of most subsystems rather than a few. This as a whole constitutes a kind of naturalistic or systematic axiology.},
year = {2020}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - A Naturalistic Approach of Human Enhancement Ethics AU - Jingtao Jiang Y1 - 2020/06/15 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20200402.12 DO - 10.11648/j.stpp.20200402.12 T2 - Science, Technology & Public Policy JF - Science, Technology & Public Policy JO - Science, Technology & Public Policy SP - 54 EP - 59 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-4621 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20200402.12 AB - The debate between conservatism and progressivism of human enhancement ethics is essentially a debate between normative ethics and naturalistic ethics. Naturalistic ethics has a problem of "naturalistic fallacy", and normative ethics also has a problem of "normative paranoea". The former is a historical limitation of human cognitive ability which can be gradually solved with the development of science and technology, while the latter is a self-righteous positioning error of anthropocentrism. Therefore, normative ethics should give way to naturalistic ethics, and accordingly conservatism of human enhancement ethics should give way to progressivism. A naturalistic research approach is needed for human enhancement ethics. This naturalistic approach regards man as a living system that realizes its pursuit of balance through survival and development. Freedom is the pursuit of the balanced state of the living system, while survival and development are the process of the realizing of this pursuit. Equality is the fact that living systems are identical to other living systems and thus have equal influence in the higher systems of which they are composed. Democracy is a high-level system composed of living systems in which the dominant power is in the hands of most subsystems rather than a few. This as a whole constitutes a kind of naturalistic or systematic axiology. VL - 4 IS - 2 ER -
Information
Email: