From: Mark Walker (mdwalker@quickclic.net)
Date: Sat Sep 21 2002 - 09:17:34 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anders Sandberg" <asa@nada.kth.se>
> A transhumanist response to this would be to instead affirm morphological
> freedom, and seek to figure out some regime for what prenatal changes
> might be OK. The point is, we need to go on the ethical offensive from
> the other side: most voluntary adult changes are OK, and prenatal changes
> are also to a great extent OK, and must be judged by their actual effects
> rather than imaginary threats or how they break some religious principle.
>
I agree that we need to take the ethical offensive. Part of the problem I
see it is that transhumanists are too easily willing to concede the ethical
high ground. There is a tendency to see the issue in terms of actions that
are ethically impermissible and actions that are ethically permissible.
Fukuyama
and Kass for example argue that the sorts of changes to persons that
transhumanists envision are morally impermissible while transhumanists argue
that they are permissible. I tend to think that there are three categories
here:
1. Morally forbidden.
2. Morally permissible.
3. Morally obligatory.
I have tried to show in some of my work that initiating the transhumanist
project is morally obligatory. It is tempting to take the short line here as
say how could making ourselves better not contribute to the promotion of the
right or the good (insert your favorite ethical theory here). Of course a
more nuanced treatment is necessary but the dialectical point is that if we
can show that transhumanism promotes the right or the good then our project
cannot be dismissed so lightly. If one says that the project is (merely)
permissible it is easy for our opponents to make the project look like
exposing humanity to all sorts of dangers for merely self-indulgent reasons.
Note this is consistent with libertarianism, at least conceived of as a
political doctrine, for not all morally obligatory actions need be thought
of as enforceable: there are two subdivisions here. Refraining from murder
is morally obligatory and enforceable, saving the children from going over
the waterfall may be morally obligatory but not enforceable (depending on
what sorts of risks are involved).
Note too that one need not believe that morality is more than "Inventing
Right and Wrong". One can argue conditionally, given that our opponents
believe in deontology, consequentialism, perfectionism, etc., we can show
that transhumanism follows from these positions.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:12 MST