Bioconservatism, bioenhancement and backfiring

Tamara Kayali Browne, Steve Clarke

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The prospect of enhancing ourselves through the use of new biotechnologies is for the most part, hypothetical. Nevertheless, the question of whether we should undertake such enhancement is worthy of discussion as it may become possible in the future. In this article, we consider one form of argument that conservative opponents of biotechnological means of enhancement (bioconservatives) deploy in opposition to the use of enhancement technologies—the backfiring objection. This is the objection that the use of such technologies is liable to go wrong and lead to outcomes that are inferior to the outcomes intended. We will argue that the objection is not nearly as significant as bioconservatives suppose it to be. Bioconservatives sometimes supplement the backfiring objection by arguing that change will be irreversible, that the new (or the unconventional) is especially liable to backfire and that humans possess severe and permanent limitations which cannot be overcome. We consider these ways of supplementing the backfiring objection and argue that each of them, when properly understood, is of limited value to the bioconservative. We also consider how traditional approaches to moral education can be supplemented by bioenhancement.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Moral Education
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Enhancement
Biotechnology
Opponents
Supplements
Moral Education

Cite this

@article{8fc336e17672403786a9c49ed38e155a,
title = "Bioconservatism, bioenhancement and backfiring",
abstract = "The prospect of enhancing ourselves through the use of new biotechnologies is for the most part, hypothetical. Nevertheless, the question of whether we should undertake such enhancement is worthy of discussion as it may become possible in the future. In this article, we consider one form of argument that conservative opponents of biotechnological means of enhancement (bioconservatives) deploy in opposition to the use of enhancement technologies—the backfiring objection. This is the objection that the use of such technologies is liable to go wrong and lead to outcomes that are inferior to the outcomes intended. We will argue that the objection is not nearly as significant as bioconservatives suppose it to be. Bioconservatives sometimes supplement the backfiring objection by arguing that change will be irreversible, that the new (or the unconventional) is especially liable to backfire and that humans possess severe and permanent limitations which cannot be overcome. We consider these ways of supplementing the backfiring objection and argue that each of them, when properly understood, is of limited value to the bioconservative. We also consider how traditional approaches to moral education can be supplemented by bioenhancement.",
keywords = "backfire, bioconservatism, bioenhancement, Brave New World, conservative, enhancement, moral education",
author = "Browne, {Tamara Kayali} and Steve Clarke",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/03057240.2019.1576125",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Moral Education",
issn = "0305-7240",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

Bioconservatism, bioenhancement and backfiring. / Browne, Tamara Kayali; Clarke, Steve.

In: Journal of Moral Education, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bioconservatism, bioenhancement and backfiring

AU - Browne, Tamara Kayali

AU - Clarke, Steve

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - The prospect of enhancing ourselves through the use of new biotechnologies is for the most part, hypothetical. Nevertheless, the question of whether we should undertake such enhancement is worthy of discussion as it may become possible in the future. In this article, we consider one form of argument that conservative opponents of biotechnological means of enhancement (bioconservatives) deploy in opposition to the use of enhancement technologies—the backfiring objection. This is the objection that the use of such technologies is liable to go wrong and lead to outcomes that are inferior to the outcomes intended. We will argue that the objection is not nearly as significant as bioconservatives suppose it to be. Bioconservatives sometimes supplement the backfiring objection by arguing that change will be irreversible, that the new (or the unconventional) is especially liable to backfire and that humans possess severe and permanent limitations which cannot be overcome. We consider these ways of supplementing the backfiring objection and argue that each of them, when properly understood, is of limited value to the bioconservative. We also consider how traditional approaches to moral education can be supplemented by bioenhancement.

AB - The prospect of enhancing ourselves through the use of new biotechnologies is for the most part, hypothetical. Nevertheless, the question of whether we should undertake such enhancement is worthy of discussion as it may become possible in the future. In this article, we consider one form of argument that conservative opponents of biotechnological means of enhancement (bioconservatives) deploy in opposition to the use of enhancement technologies—the backfiring objection. This is the objection that the use of such technologies is liable to go wrong and lead to outcomes that are inferior to the outcomes intended. We will argue that the objection is not nearly as significant as bioconservatives suppose it to be. Bioconservatives sometimes supplement the backfiring objection by arguing that change will be irreversible, that the new (or the unconventional) is especially liable to backfire and that humans possess severe and permanent limitations which cannot be overcome. We consider these ways of supplementing the backfiring objection and argue that each of them, when properly understood, is of limited value to the bioconservative. We also consider how traditional approaches to moral education can be supplemented by bioenhancement.

KW - backfire

KW - bioconservatism

KW - bioenhancement

KW - Brave New World

KW - conservative

KW - enhancement

KW - moral education

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063688244&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063688244&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/03057240.2019.1576125

DO - 10.1080/03057240.2019.1576125

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85063688244

JO - Journal of Moral Education

JF - Journal of Moral Education

SN - 0305-7240

ER -