In defence of posthuman vulnerability

  1. Belen Liedo Fernandez
  2. Jon Rueda
Revista:
Scientia et fides

ISSN: 2300-7648

Año de publicación: 2021

Volumen: 9

Número: 1

Páginas: 215-239

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.12775/SETF.2021.008 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Scientia et fides

Resumen

Transhumanism is a challenging movement that invites us to rethink what defines humanity, including what we value and regret the most about our existence. Vulnerability is a key concept that require thorough philosophical scrutiny concerning transhumanist proposals. Vulnerability can refer to a universal condition of human life (ontological vulnerability) or, rather, to the specific exposure to certain harms due to particular situations (social vulnerability). Even if we are all vulnerable in the first sense, there are also different sources and levels of vulnerability depending on concrete social circumstances. Recently, Michael Hauskeller (2019) argued about a fundamental incompatibility between transhumanism and vulnerability. He understands vulnerability as an existential category, linked to woundability and mortality. This idea is akin to ontological vulnerability, but it does not notice some important features of social vulnerability. On the other side, transhumanism is a complex and non-homogeneous movement. Here we distinguish between a strong and a weak version of transhumanism. We will propose that the salience of vulnerability is only diminished in the radical one, while a moderate version can reconcile vulnerability with human enhancement. Thus, vulnerability, a concept that has recently gained much importance as an anthropological category in contemporary ethics, is not necessarily at odds with any transhumanist project.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Anderson, Joel. 2014. “Autonomy and Vulnerability Entwined.” In Mackenzie, Catriona; Rogers, Wendy; and Dodds, Susan (eds.). Vulnerability. New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy, 134-161. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Annas, George J., Andrews, Lori, B. & Isasi, Rosario M. 2002. “Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations.” American Journal of Law & Medicine, 28 (2-3): 151-178.
  • Albertson Fineman, Martha. 2008. “The Vulnerable Subject. Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition.” Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 20 (1): 1-24.
  • Asla, Mariano. 2019. “Acerca de los límites, imperfecciones y males de la condición humana: El biomejoramiento desde una perspectiva tomista.” Scientia et Fides 7 (2): 77-95.
  • Birnbacher, Dieter. 2010. “Posthumanity, Transhumanism and Human Nature.” In Gordijn, B. & Chadwick, R., Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity, 95-106. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Bostrom, Nick. 2005. “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity.” Bioethics 19 (3):202-214.
  • Bostrom, Nick & Ord, Toby. 2006. “The Reversal Test: Eliminating Status Quos Bias in Applied Ethics.” Ethics 116: 656-679.
  • Bostrom, Nick. 2008a. “Letter from Utopia.” Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 2 (1):1-7.
  • Bostrom, Nick. 2008b. “Why I want to be a posthuman when I grow up.” In Gordijn, B. & Chadwick, R. Medical Enhancement and Posthumanity, 107-136. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Bostrom, Nick. 2019. “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis.” Global Policy 10 (4): 455-476.
  • Braidotti, Rosi. 2013. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.
  • Bracken-Roche, Dearbhail; Bell, Emily; Macdonald, Mary Ellen; and Racine, Eric. 2017. “The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: An in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines.” Health Research and Policy Systems, 15 (1), 1-18.
  • Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious Life: The Power of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso Books.
  • Cannavò, Peter F. 2019. “Vulnerability and Non-Domination: A Republican Perspective on Natural Limits.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. DOI: 10.1080/13698230.2019.1698155
  • Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). 2002 [1998]. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva, Switzerland. Available online, accessed 24 April 2020. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/International_Ethical_Guidelines_for_Biomedical_Research_Involving_Human_Subjects.pdf
  • Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2011. “Vulnerable Cyborgs: Learning to Live with our Dragons.” Journal of Evolution & Technology 22 (1): 1-9.
  • Diéguez, Antonio. 2017. Transhumanismo. La búsqueda tecnológica del mejoramiento humano. Barcelona: Herder.
  • Delgado Rodríguez, Janet (2017). The relevance of the ethics of vulnerability in bioethics. Les ateliers de l'éthique / The Ethics Forum, 12, (2-3), 154–179. https://doi.org/10.7202/1051280ar
  • Doods, Susan. 2014. “Dependence, Care, and Vulnerability.” In Mackenzie, Catriona; Rogers, Wendy; and Dodds, Susan (eds.). Vulnerability. New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy, 181-221. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Fineman, Martha A. 2004. The Autonomy Myth: a Theory of Dependency. New York: The New Press.
  • Fineman, Martha A. 2008. “The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition”. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 20 (1); Emory Public Law Research Paper No. 8-40. Available at SSRN, accessed 15 April 2020: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1131407
  • García-Barranquero, Pablo. 2021. Transhumanist Immortality: Understanding the Dream as a Nightmare. Scientia et Fides, in press.
  • Goodin, Robert E. 1985. Protecting the Vulnerable. A Re-Analysis of Our Social Responsibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Halberstam, Judith M. & Livingston, Ira (Eds.). 1995. Posthuman bodies. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
  • Harris, John. 1992. Wonderwoman and Superman: The Ethics of Human Biotechnology. Oxford: OUP.
  • Hauskeller, Michael. 2012. “Reinventing Cockaigne: Utopian Themes in Transhumanist Thought.” Hastings Center Report 42 (2): 39-47.
  • Hauskeller, Michael. 2014. “Utopia.” In Ranisch, Robert & Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz (eds.) Post- and Transhumanism: An Introduction. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 101-108.
  • Hauskeller, Michael. 2019. “Ephemeroi – Human Vulnerability, Transhumanism, and the Meaning of Life.” Scientia et Fides 7 (2): 9-21.
  • Hayles, Katherine N. (1999). How we became posthuman. Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Held, Virginia. 2006. The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Hofmann, Bjørn. 2017. “Limits to Human Enhancement: Nature, Disease, Therapy or Betterment?” BMC Medical Ethics 18:56.
  • Jonas, Hans. 1984 [1979]. The Imperative of Responsibility. In Search of an Ethics for Technological Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Juengst, Eric T. 2009. “What’s Taxonomy Got to Do with It? ‘Species Integrity’, Human Rights, and Science Policy.” In Julian Savulescu & Nick Bostrom (Eds.). Human Enhancement, 43-58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kass, Leon R. 2003. “Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Perfection.” The New Atlantis. A Journal of Technology & Society 1: 9-28.
  • Kipnis, Kenneth. 2001. “Vulnerability in Research Subjects: A Bioethical Taxonomy”. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission (ed). Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants, G1–G13. Bethesda: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
  • Kittay, Eva Feder. 2005 “Equality, Dignity and Disability.” In Mary Ann Lyons and Fionnuala Waldron (eds.). Perspectives on Equality. The Second Seamus Heaney Lectures, 95-122. Dublin: The Liffey Press.
  • Kittay, Eva Feder. 1999. Love’s Labor. Essays on Women, Equality and Dependency. New York: Routledge.
  • Lewens, Tim. 2015. The Biological Foundations of Bioethics. Oxford: OUP.
  • Llano, Fernando H. 2019. “Transhumanism, Vulnerability and Human Dignity.” Deusto Journal of Human Rights 4: 39-58.
  • Luna, Florencia. 2006. Bioethics and Vulnerability, A Latin American View. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi.
  • Luna, Florencia. 2009. Elucidating the concept of vulnerability. Layers not labels. The International Journal Of Feminist Approaches To Bioethics, Vol. 2, No. 1; 120-138.
  • Mackenzie, Catriona; Rogers, Wendy; and Dodds, Susan (eds.). 2014. Introduction to Vulnerability. New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy, 1-29. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • More, Max. 1993. “Technological self-transformation. Expanding personal extropy.” Extropy 10 (4:2). Retrieved from: http://www.maxmore.com/writing.htm
  • More, Max. 2013 [1999]. “Letter to Mother Nature.” In The transhumanist reader. Classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future, edited by Max More and Natasha
  • Vita-More, 449-450. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • More, Max. 2013. “The Philosophy of Transhumanism”. In The transhumanist Reader. Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, edited by Max More and Natasha Vita-More, 3-17. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW). 1978. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, Report of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
  • Nussbaum, Martha C. 1986. The Fragility of Goodness. Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • O’Neill, Onora. 1996. Towards Justice and Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Parens, Erik. 1995. “The Goodness of Fragility: On the Prospects of Genetic Technologies Aimed at the Enhancement of Human Capacities.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5 (2): 141-153.
  • Pearce, David. 1995/2015. The Hedonistic Imperative. Available online, accessed 15th April 2020: https://www.hedweb.com/
  • Porter, Allen. 2017. “Bioethics and Transhumanism.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 42: 237-260.
  • Rendtorff, Jacob Dahl 2002. “Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw: Autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability – Towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw.” Medicine Health Care Philosophy 5: 235-244.
  • nd Author. 2020a.
  • nd Author. 2020b.
  • Sandel, Michael. 2007. The Case against Perfection. Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. London: Harvard University Press.
  • Schroeder, Doris and Gefenas, Eugenijus. 2009. “Vulnerability: Too Vague and Too Broad?” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 18(2): 113-21. DOI: 10.1017/S0963180109090203.
  • Silver, Lee M. 1997. Remaking Eden: How Genetic Engineering and Cloning Will Transform the American Family. New York: Avon Books.
  • Ten Have, Henk. 2016. Vulnerability: Challenging Bioethics. New York: Routledge.
  • Tronto, Joan C. 1993. Moral Boundaries: a Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York: Routledge.
  • Tronto, Joan C. 2013. Caring Democracy: Markets, Equality, and Justice. New York: New York University Press.
  • Woollard, Geoffrey. 2019. “Waking Up from Transhumanist Dreams: Reframing Cancer in an Evolving Universe.” Scientia et Fides 7 (2): 139-164.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet