TechnoProgressive Biopolitics and Human Enhancement

A principal challenge facing the progressive bioethics project is the crafting of a consistent message on biopolitical issues that divide progressives.

... Complete entry

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/10  at  05:30 PM

"Insofar as left bioconservatives want to ensure the safety of therapies..."

Doesn't /everybody/ want to ensure the safety of therapies? Or are you only talking, more or less, about abortion.

"Insofar as bioconservative concerns are motivated by deeper hostility to the Enlightenment project however, by assertion of pre-modern reverence for human uniqueness for instance, then a common program is unlikely. "

When the Enlightenment was in full swing, didn't the followers /still/ believe in human uniqueness? Was that a flaw that just hadn't been worked out yet?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/11  at  06:05 AM

I might approach my last comment from a different angle.

The word "pre-modern" in that sentence sounds a little biased to me. Similar to the way "medieval" is so often used. Imagine replacing it with "traditional" or "time-honored." Would we not accuse the writer of engaging in "argumentum ad antiquitatem"? Using "pre-modern," some might accuse you of engaging in "Argumentum ad novitatem."

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/11  at  06:08 AM

Hmmm. Using fancy Latin terms like that sounds pretentious. Sorry about that!

Posted by jhughes  on  12/11  at  08:48 AM

Veronica

You are right that "time-honored" would convey a different message than "pre-modern". The former valorizes pre-Enlightenment values, the latter labels them as pre-Enlightenment. That's why I used "pre-modern."

Re: ensuring the safety of therapies I'm pointing out that there are two kinds of objections to enhancement, safety/equity concerns and pre-modern yuck factor concerns. Insofar as the left biocons focus on safety/equity then they can unite with technoprogressives around strengthening clinical testing and universal access as answers to their concerns. Insofar as they are actually motivated by pre-modern yuck factor concerns such as defending human exceptionalism then there is no common ground.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/11  at  01:14 PM

You wrote "pre-modern REVERENCE." I feel you didn't address my concern.

Posted by jhughes  on  12/11  at  02:48 PM

The "reverence" of human exceptionalism is a pre-modern attitude in my analysis because it rests on either an explicit appeal to a notion of the soul, or a crypto-religious hand wave at some other allegedly unique human traits that confers dignity only on us. I consider non-anthropocentric personhood ethics to be the ethics consistent with Enlightenment values, although admittedly the philosophes would mostly have been surprised to hear that. Perhaps not Diderot....

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/12  at  09:48 PM

Your second to last sentence addressed my question much better, thanks.

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: