Science, Technology & Public Policy
Volume 4, Issue 2, December 2020, Pages: 54-59
Received: May 18, 2020;
Accepted: Jun. 4, 2020;
Published: Jun. 15, 2020
Views 323 Downloads 160
Jingtao Jiang, Research Centre of Medical Humanities, Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China
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.
A Naturalistic Approach of Human Enhancement Ethics, Science, Technology & Public Policy.
Vol. 4, No. 2,
2020, pp. 54-59.
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
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.
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.
Tolleneer, J., S. Sterckx, and P. Bonte, (2012). Athletic Enhancement, Human Nature and Ethics: Threats and Opportunities of Doping Technologies. New York: Springer, 196.
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.
Sharon, T. (2014). Human Nature in an Age of Biotechnology: The Case for Mediated Posthumanism. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer, 3.
Hayles, N. K. (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 84.
Wolbring, G. (2006). The unenhanced underclass. Media Development 53 (2): 30-45.
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.
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.
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).
Hughes, J. (2002). Democratic Transhumanism 2.0 [On-line]. Available: http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/DemocraticTranshumanism.htm (accessed April 2, 2020).
Whitehead, A. N. (1948). Science and the Modern World. New York: The New American Library, pp. 96-106.
Laszlo, E. (1973). A systems philosophy of human values. Behavioral Science, 18 (4): 250–259.
Taylor, P. 1986. Respect for Nature, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 121-122.
Jiang, J. T. (2019). On the nature of moral from the perspective of systematic axiology. Legal System and Society, (05): 231-232+239.
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.
Jiang, J. T. (2019). A system axiological interpretation and development of scientific socialistic values. New West, (09): 4-6.