Week 7 Post 1-Enhancement

Toward a Taxonomy of Enhancement Developments

-There are many varied types of enhancements 

-A taxonomy is a structuring of different phenomena into different categories, and they are not cut and dry, they are often choices being made

-The first division in biological v. non-biological enhancement, and there is some contention over where the line is between these two, as getting a tutored. which would be considered non-biological, and taking ADHD medicine, which would be considered biological, both technically alter your brain 

    -Another example of non-biological enhancement is prosthetic legs, or using a google glass

    -The current regulatory system only really  focuses on biological enhancements and not non-biological ones, and the FDA has strict definitions to try to avoid fuzziness, basically if it directly alters the biology of the person it is regulated, like drugs or stem cells

    -One of the reasons that biological enhancements are regulated is because they seem more invasive and therefore seen as more dangerous, however if looking from an ethical point some non-biological enhancements, such as google glasses, have much broader effects on society

    -Often the problem is not that the enhancement is biological but that it falls under one of the lower taxonomies 

-Within the category of biological enhancements there is a sub-distinction of genetic v. non-genetic biological enhancements 

    -An example of non-genetic would be using Ritalin or beta blockers to enhance your performance, and an example of genetic would be using CRISPR to alter your genome or selecting sperm donors or embryos

    -Genetic enhancements are often seen with special concern because they enhance something that is seen as more essentially us, our DNA. There is also the concern that this will be passed down to offspring

-Another set of distinctions is whether the enhancement is something a person is choosing to do to themselves or if the choice is being made for them, and often times adults are able to make the choice and children are not

    -Under the non-choice category there is a further distinction of the choice being made before or after the birth of someone, and in the before birth category there is a further distinction of whether the enhancement was a selection or a manipulation of already implanted embryo 

    -With selection a person is trying to pick out certain genetic characteristics that they feel offer enhancement by making a decision about the child's genotype, and an example is the shopping for sperm donors done or a selection of already created embryos that a couple had created for IVF

    -With manipulation of an already implanted embryo an example would be genetic changes within the embryo after it is implanted, which is a hypothetical to avoid bad traits

-Another set of distinctions is whether the enhancement will expand or limit the options of the person, am example of expanding options would be selecting against disease and one of limiting options would be making the child taller, which would make them unable to fit in a rocket 

    -This distinction is also applicable to non-biological enhancements for example getting a tutor to expand someone's intelligence 

    -How many options are being closed for the sake of the enhancement

-Another distinction is if the enhancement is reversible or irreversible, and there is a continuum of how reversible an enhancement can be

-A further distinction is one between actual enhancements, which are meant to make people better than well and just treatments for things like diseases or disabilities, which is meant to make people just well

    -This distinction makes an ethical difference for many people, because many believe society has a moral obligation to get everyone at the "species typical level" of function but not beyond it 

    -Others argue that this distinction is trivial and fall prey to the baseline it sets, never wanting to over achieve it

    -A further distinction in this taxonomy is between enhancing to what humans have already achieved to what they by nature have not, like making someone live as long as a human has lived before naturally but not further than that

        -Enhancing past what humans have already achieved is in this line of thinking making us not human, which is an important distinction

    -Currently now there are random options for the genetic lottery, which makes the different levels of advantage people have, such as height or being prone to disease, more fair, but if humans themselves are selecting traits then there is more unfairness to it

-Another distinction is between absolute v. propositional goods, where in absolute everyone benefits from having the enhancement, such as curing diseases, and in propositional where it is only advantageous if a person has an advantage over another, such as height

    -Most traits are mixes 

What the Law Might Do

-Governments can regulate against enhancement or they can mandate it, as they largely have with vaccines or adding fluoride to water

-Governments could also chose to subsidize the enhancements or apply taxes to them

-Governments may also still give people the freedom to do the enhancement but provide outside things to de-incentivize people to get them done, such as waiting periods

What is Wrong With Enhancements

-Some enhancements may pose risks for the individuals who seek them or have them imposed upon them, which is particularly true for genetic enhancements

    -There can be a risk v. reward in enhancements and government intervention is often paternalistic in trying to stop someone from doing something for their own good

-Another problem with enhancements is distribution and inequality, as when enhancements are available for purchase there is a risk they will lead to distributional injustice, and this is applicable to almost very kind of enhancement

    -Enhancements may also level the playing field if they are an absolute good distributed to everyone

-If enhancement is subsidized by the government it could in theory get rid of the inequality, but making it available to everyone could also make the value of the enhancement go down

-Governments could also mandate the enhancement, which are disfavored because of the lack of freedom they come with, and also may have problems on a personal level if the parents of a child refuse to get the enhancement placing them behind their other peers 

-Another concern with government subsidized enhancement is that if it is truly up to the individual to make the choice, they have no barriers of entry, that there will instead be a coercion to get the enhancement, because it if everyone has it it is harmful to them not to, as they cannot compete 

-Another issue is that some systems, such as sports operate on a random distribution of talent and enhancements would nullify these practices 

-Another concern is that enhancements will erode solidarity with humans, because when people have more chance and risk involved in their life, especially when it comes to their traits and successes they are more sympathic to others because they understand their successes were benefitted in part by lucky, and they could have had unfortunate occurrences happen to them

-One problem people often have with enhancement is that it is progressing past how humans currently are, but throughout human history humans have made changes to improve their lives, for example disease immunity is much higher now than in the 1400s, which is the baseline problem, which says that if humanity is currently at a certain baseline and some people progress past that, then others will be left behind, which ignores that that is how humanity works and progresses

    -The baseline problem makes an undefendable appeal to nature, which is that what is natural is good and unnatural is bad

-Some argue that enhancements should only be allowed if the benefits of them transfer to others, and should not be allowed if they shift the costs onto other people

What's Wrong With Enhancement-Enhancing Children

-There is still the risk and safety concerns of enhancement but they are expanded as the state must regulate the parents making the decision, and parents have to evaluate the risks themselves

 -The non-identity problem says we cannot harm someone through reproduction if they are born with a life worth living, because in order to prevent that harm another person would have to come into being, so the line of reasoning about preventing enhancement pre-birth on children does not work, because as long as they have a life worth living they should be born

-Another argument against enhancement is that it can harm a child and the harm will not outweigh the benefits in certain cases, however if the choice is between the enhancement and not being born the enhancement is the better option

    -This argument also says that disfigurement of a child corrupts parenthood, and will cause consequentialist corruption, because it could perpetuate a view of child as de-humanized products, but that is super hard to measure

-Another concern is after birth enhancement because it brings up a question of the shifting definition of love, where a parent, who is supposed to have unconditional love for a child, gives their child an enhancement to further complete their love of the child, which shows that a part of their love was missing from the beginning 

-Enhancements may also limit a child's future opportunities, and get rid of an open future for them, which is seen as a right