神经认知增强背后的超人类主义哲学和公共利益分裂的风险

L. Vianna, Luiz Adriano Gonçalves Borges
{"title":"神经认知增强背后的超人类主义哲学和公共利益分裂的风险","authors":"L. Vianna, Luiz Adriano Gonçalves Borges","doi":"10.5007/1677-2954.2021.E80038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we address the transhumanist philosophy underlying neurocognitive enhancements. We will outline an ethical-social critique of the movement, based on a bibliographic review of works by C. S. Lewis, Michael Polanyi, Jurgen Habermas, Francis Fukuyama, Leon Kaas, Michael Sandel, John Finnis and Jacques Maritain. We also address the issue of the common good in the face of the transhuman and the consequences that could arise from not thinking ethically about the implications of cognitive enhancement. We concluded that the “common good” foreseen in the transhumanist philosophy lacks an adequate completion of the term. The Aristotelian common good is, above all, a virtuous coordination of private goods. Considering, however, that these goods are linked to human nature, which can be substantially altered by transhumanist transformations, there are two risks that present themselves: or that one seeks to modify the human status of all in a hegemonic claim that violates individual freedom; or, in a liberal perspective, that the transformation of only those who so choose will jeopardize human ontology itself. Thus, it could become impossible to speak of the common good, since it derives from the coordination of private goods that, ultimately, depend on the sharing of a common ontological status.","PeriodicalId":143268,"journal":{"name":"Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A filosofia transumanista subjacente aos aprimoramentos neurocognitivos e o risco de fragmentação do bem comum\",\"authors\":\"L. Vianna, Luiz Adriano Gonçalves Borges\",\"doi\":\"10.5007/1677-2954.2021.E80038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, we address the transhumanist philosophy underlying neurocognitive enhancements. We will outline an ethical-social critique of the movement, based on a bibliographic review of works by C. S. Lewis, Michael Polanyi, Jurgen Habermas, Francis Fukuyama, Leon Kaas, Michael Sandel, John Finnis and Jacques Maritain. We also address the issue of the common good in the face of the transhuman and the consequences that could arise from not thinking ethically about the implications of cognitive enhancement. We concluded that the “common good” foreseen in the transhumanist philosophy lacks an adequate completion of the term. The Aristotelian common good is, above all, a virtuous coordination of private goods. Considering, however, that these goods are linked to human nature, which can be substantially altered by transhumanist transformations, there are two risks that present themselves: or that one seeks to modify the human status of all in a hegemonic claim that violates individual freedom; or, in a liberal perspective, that the transformation of only those who so choose will jeopardize human ontology itself. Thus, it could become impossible to speak of the common good, since it derives from the coordination of private goods that, ultimately, depend on the sharing of a common ontological status.\",\"PeriodicalId\":143268,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2021.E80038\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethic@: an International Journal for Moral Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2021.E80038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我们讨论了神经认知增强背后的超人类主义哲学。我们将根据c·s·刘易斯、迈克尔·波兰尼、于尔根·哈贝马斯、弗朗西斯·福山、莱昂·卡斯、迈克尔·桑德尔、约翰·菲尼斯和雅克·马里坦等人的作品的参考文献综述,概述对该运动的伦理-社会批判。我们还讨论了面对超人类时的共同利益问题,以及不从伦理角度思考认知增强的含义可能产生的后果。我们的结论是,超人类主义哲学所预见的“共同利益”缺乏对这个术语的充分完善。亚里士多德的公共利益首先是私人利益的良性协调。然而,考虑到这些商品与人性有关,而人性可以通过超人类主义的转变而得到实质性的改变,就会出现两种风险:或者,人们试图以一种侵犯个人自由的霸权主张来修改所有人的人类地位;或者,从自由主义的角度来看,只有那些选择改变的人才会危及人类本体论本身。因此,可能不可能谈论共同利益,因为它源于私人物品的协调,最终依赖于共享共同的本体论地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A filosofia transumanista subjacente aos aprimoramentos neurocognitivos e o risco de fragmentação do bem comum
In this article, we address the transhumanist philosophy underlying neurocognitive enhancements. We will outline an ethical-social critique of the movement, based on a bibliographic review of works by C. S. Lewis, Michael Polanyi, Jurgen Habermas, Francis Fukuyama, Leon Kaas, Michael Sandel, John Finnis and Jacques Maritain. We also address the issue of the common good in the face of the transhuman and the consequences that could arise from not thinking ethically about the implications of cognitive enhancement. We concluded that the “common good” foreseen in the transhumanist philosophy lacks an adequate completion of the term. The Aristotelian common good is, above all, a virtuous coordination of private goods. Considering, however, that these goods are linked to human nature, which can be substantially altered by transhumanist transformations, there are two risks that present themselves: or that one seeks to modify the human status of all in a hegemonic claim that violates individual freedom; or, in a liberal perspective, that the transformation of only those who so choose will jeopardize human ontology itself. Thus, it could become impossible to speak of the common good, since it derives from the coordination of private goods that, ultimately, depend on the sharing of a common ontological status.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信