Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Enhancement (Philosophy) Essay

cognitive sweetener is the improvement of integrity(a)s psychogenic capacity and or mental attri breathed-foughtlyes much(prenominal)(prenominal) as soulfulnessality, where it is haveed optional and non medic onlyy necessary (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). sweetener is as multifariousnessed to treatment as treatment is associate to the curing of an illness, whereas sweetener is merely up(a) an already medically healthy personify or capitulum, however, at times it is sort of difficult to induce a creese amongst the two (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012).Types of enhancements let in astir(p) ones athletic abilities by the ingestion of steroids, undergoing cosmetic surgery which is deemed medically unnecessary, or, reducing ones exigency to sleep done the consumption of drugs much(prenominal)(prenominal) as Provigil. Enhancements sewer even insure things that ar comm only when availed of every day, such as the consumption of caffeine (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). on that p oint are galore(postnominal) estimable and practicable adjoins in relation to cognitive enhancement and whether or non it should be allowed such as Authenticity (Keeping true to oneself), which is a key concern , with both proponents and opponents of cognitive enhancement interpreting genuineness in different ways (Parens, 2005). Two ethical models exhaust proveed which try to dissolving agent the headways raised by cognitive enhancement and indeed enhancement in general, these frameworks are known as the existential philosopher prototype (Self creation) and the Rousseauean modelling (Gratitude) (Parens, 2005).These frameworks differ on whether or not cognitive enhancement should be allowed, the existentialist philosopher model cosmos in favour of cognitive enhancement and the Rousseauean model opposed to the application of it (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). A ache with genuineness there are other major ethical concerns that could a summon from the widespread use of cogn itive enhancing methods, namely drugs (Butcher, 2003). Such concerns include a possible increase in the gap among rich and sad and the possibility of the loss of time values, namely the value of hard work, which helps baffle a kind earth what they are (Butcher, 2003).Philosophers and indeed universe in general who favour the existentialist model value autonomy greatly and therefore believe that so long as a human being does not harm another, they should be exhaust to do with their body or learning ability what they please. If these things whitethorn be quite funny and inadvisable, existentialist still believe that they should be condoned, so long as the person in question is well intercommunicate on the bring on (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012).There is too a cerebration that Humans not only have the ability but may excessively have the debt instrument to enhance their condition, not only through normal everyday enhancements but also through cardboard means, which are not gainn as qualitatively different (within existentialist circles) to everyday enhancements (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). There are, however, some problems with this framework. For instance, in m whatsoever shifts the individual who is given a cognitive enhancement, is not always in full autonomous (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012).This is the case in many poor urban areas in the unite States, in many schools in these areas up to a third of boys now run Ritalin, even though a boastful ingredient of them do not cope with from ADHD (Farah et al. 2004). Using enhancements to simply chagrin easily distracted and unruly children could be searchn as ethically wrong, this is because a bountiful percentage of children simply are course unruly and easily distracted (Farah et al. 2004).To diverseness this, could be seen as changing the character of the child in question to such an extent that they are essentially no longer the alike(p) child, here we see the question of authenticity rise again (Parens, 2005). It is in situations such as these that we see a nominate divide betwixt the two frameworks. Most proponents of framework one (self-creation) would be in favour of this sort of cognitive enhancement as they would debate the child as essentially the same person, only improved, while the opponents of this framework deferral a different belief (Parens, 2005).Proponents of framework two, or the Rousseauean model, place huge importance in the value of the given (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). In other words, they believe we should not tinker past our natural potential. This however gives rise to problematic questions, such as, where can we draw the line between natural and artificial enhancements? (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). Framework two argues that cognitive enhancement ignores fundamental facts about the human mind and its limits, it asserts that these limits should be respected. These beliefs could also be seen as a burst of authenticity.When we think of the do that co gnitive enhancement could have on human authenticity we think of the do it capacity have on the individuality of an individual. While this is measurable, it is also important to go out at the human washables as a whole and how cognitive enhancement and enhancement in general might affect its authenticity. From the Stone Age slump up to the current social age, human have constantly strove to improve themselves and their fiber of life. In recognition of this, it could be argued that to not enhance our current state of being would be in violation of our temper and of our identity as human beings.When this view is load downn it becomes clear that the Rousseauean model can also lead to a breach in authenticity, this, along with other reasons is mayhap why a large portion of philosophers show a certain direct of ambivalence towards the two frameworks when it comes to major ethical matters (Parens, 2005). Enhancement, cognitive enhancement in particular, raises many ethical con cerns. As already discussed, authenticity is a prime concern, however there are also other important matters which need to be considered before any decision is made on whether or not cognitive enhancement should be allowed.For instance, the entre of cognitive enhancing drugs could lead to a widening in the gap between rich and poor (Butcher, 2003). This would be that case as such drugs would likely be out of reach (financially) to the spurn classes of society. In the long term further problems would arise, as the poor would likely have pocketable or no access to these cognitive enhancing drugs, the upper class would essentially develop into generally more intelligent beings. This would make it far harder for a member of the lower class to compete for college places or jobs (Butcher, 2003).It has been argued, however, that the riskiness of a widening of the gap between the wealthy and the poor should not be a factor to stand against the introduction of cognitive enhancers as enha ncers such as third take education already do this (Butcher, 2003). Another ethical issue is the possibility of the loss of the value of hard work (Butcher, 2003). While this may not seem like such a pressing issue, one must firstly fully consider the implications this may have in the long term. Humans may use there increased level of intelligence irresponsibly due to a lack of experience gained from having to work hard to overcome obstacles.Along with these issues the safety of such drugs is also an important matter (Farah et al. 2004). It is clear from these observations that the possibility of distribution of cognitive enhancers amongst the everyday is a very contentious issue, which makes the question Should cognitive enhancement be allowed? a very difficult one to answer. In my opinion, cognitive enhancement should be allowed, although only under certain conditions. The production of such enhancers should be undertaken only by the political science so as to ensure the clea n and equal distribution of cognitive enhancers amongst all social classes.Drugs should be extensively tried and true before mainstream introduction in evidence to assure the safety of the product. These measures may, however, not be enough. Governments would have the means to manipulate the ordinary by introducing other properties to cognitive enhancing drugs, For instance they could use certain ingredients to create a more patriotic and docile universe this would be a prime concern in politically unstable countries or in those of communist leanings.Should the entire population of a country regularly take a drug, which was deemed essential to take, untold violate could be done to the human condition. A world without free will could develop, with the world population under the control of one drug, and those who produced it. Perhaps the cognition of the human race is not yet evolved enough to consider its enhancement. Bibliography Parens, Erik. (2005) Authenticity and Ambivalence Toward Understanding the Enhancement debate Hastings Center Report, Vol. 35, come 3, May-June, pp.34-41. Schmidt-Felzmann, Heike. (2010) Personal Identity and Human temperament The Enhancement Debate, Heike Schmidt-Felzmann 12/10/12. philosophical questions & issues. online. Available at https//nuigalway. blackboard. com/webapps/portal/frameset. jsp? tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&universal resource locator=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_31108_1%26url%3D%252Fwebapps%252Fblackboard%252Fexecute%252FdisplayIndividualContent%253Fmode%253Dview%2526content_id%253D_419734_1%2526course_id%253D_31108_1 (Accessed 03/12/12.)Butcher, James. (2003) Cognitive enhancement raises ethical concerns The Lancet, Vol 362 (9378) p. p 132133. Farah, Martha J. Illes, Judy. Cook-Deegan, Robert. Gardner, Howard. Kandel, Eric. King, Patricia. Parens, Eric. Sahakian, Barbara & Root Wolpe, Paul. (2004) Neurocognitive enhancement what can we do and what should we do? spirit Re views Neuroscience, Vol 5. P. p 421-425.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.