Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:23:53.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: Modeling the Social Dynamics of Moral Enhancement While Illustrating Some Basic Divergences in the Enhancement Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2017

SØREN HOLM
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: Enhancement and Goodness
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 446 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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. Fabiano J, Sandberg A. Modelling the social dynamics of moral enhancement: social strategies sold over-the-counter and the stability of society. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics This issue

2. Bostrom, N. Letter from Utopia. Journal of Evolution and Technology 2008; 19(1):67–72.Google Scholar

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

4. Harris, J. How to be Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. There may be inherent inequalities in the game played in each encounter, but because position in the game is randomly allocated, this does not lead to systematic differences in power.

6. Bostrom, N. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.Google Scholar

7. Holm S Naturalness and anthropology in modern bioethics, with a special view to trans- and post-humanism. In: Kragh H, ed. Theology and Science - Issues for Future Dialogue. Aarhus: University of Aarhus; 2007:17–29.

8. Holm S. Evaluating the posthuman future–some philosophical problems. European Review 2016;1–9.