The Contingency of the "Enhancement" Arguments: The Possible Transition from Ethical Debate to Social and Political Programs
Whatever we speak about enhancement as the, just, one array of the wide range of the bioethical fields, or as the kind of ideological and theoretical field, it is necessary to emphasize relevant ideological and theoretical distinctions between different approaches. Trying to give some fundamental shape to debate among them, as well within themselves, I specified three possible streams with more or less arbitrary boundaries. First one is transhumanistic stream, whose representatives openly promote the practice of genetic, prosthetic and cognitive enhancement of human kind - transition from human to a post human society; bioconservative, whose representatives perceive a threat in the violation of human dignity, meddling in "God's business" (playing God), and in changes to the nature of human beings; representatives of the "middle standpoint" consider that danger lies within the dialectic relation of capitalism and medicine.
I present the three ideological standpoints trying to building consistency through different ethical arguments. Discussing the relevant theoretical/ideological distinction between standpoints and their claims, I will argue that ideological distinction among standpoints is less relevant than contingency within their arguments. Such mutual contingence creates some similarity regarding epistemological and social issues.
- There are currently no refbacks.