90.3 at 9
WCPN (Cleveland NPR affiliate)
July 14, 2005
Featuring Eric Juengst, Jennifer Fishman, and Julian
Savulescu
"From cosmetic surgery to drugs to keep you awake,
human enhancement has become a regular practice. But what
are the repercussions for our desire to improve the human
body and its functioning? Should there be limitations on how
much can be done to improve one's self? We'll hear the latest
from the world of bioethics on this, in line with a National
Summer Symposium at Cleveland State. As always, you're key
to the discussion, Thursday morning, on the next 90.3 at 9."
Summary of Key Points by Paola Ortiz
1. Physiological differentiation: Won’t enhancement prove
to be
another mode for extending the divide that already exists between
the
well-off and the poor, between the developed and third world
countries?
Isn't it apparent in the physiological differentiation of populations?
Chris Simon from the department called in with this question.
It
brought up the issue of life-style drugs being taken as imperative
by
pharmaceutical companies, while they neglect the current basic
health
concerns of the poor. One caller suggested humans are turning
into
arrogant self-centered monsters with lessening concern for other
existent beings and that this is tied with desire for self-improvement.
But can’t compassion be part of the quest for self-improvement?
2. Closing options vs. Opening options types of enhancement:
considering that what constitutes an enhancement is so culturally
dependent and therefore subject to change, will enhancing really
end up
proving to be an irreversible limiting of the self (example:
aesthetical enhancements)? Or are there certain types of enhancements
that can prove to be timeless and cultureless in that they improve
the
human condition by opening up options and so improving the human
experience (example: increased intelligence)? How are enhancements
in
principle different from the eugenics movement? [Isn’t
the only
difference that the former selected on humans while the latter
contends
to select on genes? Do both share the belief in a reductionist,
materialistic approach to the bettering of the species?]
3. “Easy Fix” Criticism: Is dealing with and accepting
one’s
limitations and problems an intrinsic part of human development
(or as
the caller described, what embarks one in a process of growth),
that
will be stunted or even lost by accessing easy fixes that curb
having
to work things through? Eric posed the question: “Has
suffering been a
human need in this sense, or simply an inevitability?”
Jennifer offered
her experience with Viagra and how consumers expressed it was
not the
cure-all for their relationship problems.
4. Differentiation vs. Normalization: Will individual’s
empowerment over their own make-up manifest itself as a homogenization
of human-kind? Or will individuality and differentiated identity
be
sustained and advocated? [Does this homogenization question
ride on the
degree of empowerment over one’s make-up, on what is given
more value
by particular cultures and individuals between conformity and
belonging, and identity and independence, or on the power of
the media
and the ongoing increase of world-wide information flow? ]
5. Defense for autonomy vs. defense for enhancement per se:
One
can be pro-choice in relation to enhancement the way one may
be with
regards to abortion. Defending everyone’s right to choose
for
themselves may be compatible with inherently rejecting enhancement
for
oneself, as professor S did on the show. Making this distinction
and
forcing oneself to delve into the real, personal issues brought
up by
enhancement per se may lead to a deeper and more genuine discussion
of
them. [I defend autonomy very easily in any issue, with the
only
limiting criteria being not hurting others and their autonomy.
But I
think that looking for arguments in favor of a specific issue
such as
enhancement, when one is really only preoccupied with conserving
individual’s autonomy in ANY issue, may lead to superficial,
tailored
and artificial, and therefore weak arguments. For instance,
I find the
stance that inequalities are pervasive in nature as is ANYWAY,
and that
equality and social justice should therefore be non-issues with
enhancement, lacking and just plain unsatisfactory. It does
not
adequately address the real concern put forth in the first point
in
this writing. We are born with natural differences but they
are random
and uncontrolled and as such cannot be morally critiqued the
way
enhancement, a human, purposeful endeavor can.]
|
