Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:21:21.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: The Implementation Ethics of Moral Enhancement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2018

NICHOLAS AGAR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Special Section: Genome Editing: Biomedical and Ethical Perspectives
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 55 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Rakic V. Genome editing for involuntary moral enhancement. In this issue of Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

2. Douglas, T. Moral enhancement. Journal of Applied Philosophy 2008;25:228–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. See note 2, Douglas 2008, at 228.

4. See note 2, Douglas 2008, at 228.

5. Persson, I, Savulescu, J. Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012, at 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Persson, I, Savulescu, J. Moral enhancement, freedom and the God Machine. The Monist 2012;95(3):399–21.Google Scholar

7. Harris, J. Moral enhancement and freedom. Bioethics 2011;25:102–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Agar, N. Moral bioenhancement is dangerous. Journal of Medical Ethics 2015;41:343–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. See note 5, Persson 2012.

10. Agar, N. Moral bioenhancement and the utilitarian catastrophe. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2015;24:37–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. See Corruption Perceptions Index 2017; available at https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017 (last accessed 27 Sept 2018).

12. See Agar, N. Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Oxford: Blackwell; 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar for my interpretation of the scope and significance of procreative freedom in respect of choices about our children’s genetic makeups.