[ExI] Human Enhancement: Making the Debate More Productive by Janet A. Kourany

[Dan]

Maybe Michael Huemer's approach might prove helpful here: start with fairly "intuitive" and popular moral core beliefs -- no "ew, brain mods are yucky," but "people should improve themselves" -- and see how enhancement fends against them.

 
Regards, 

Dan 
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," is now available at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2 



On Monday, September 15, 2014 4:20 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
 


Dan<dan_ust at yahoo.com> , 15/9/2014 8:09 PM:

See http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-013-9539-z 
>
>Haven't read the full article. 


It argues that the enhancement debate is not going anywhere because (1) lack of empirical information, and (2) lack of a normative framework. Philosophers of science are not part of the debate but could contribute.

The empirical part is true, and I often make the point myself. The claim about the normative part is problematic: any ethicist worth their salt can come up with normative frameworks, but that doesn't mean they are going to be universally accepted, either among the participants or the world at large. 

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140916/1fe83996/attachment.html>