Bernard Baertschi

For some decades, the concept of human dignity has been widely discussed in bioethical literature. Some authors think that this concept is central to questions of respect for human beings, whereas others are very critical of it. It should be noted that, in these debates, dignity is one component of a long-lasting and widespread conceptual construct used to support a stance on the ethical question of the moral status of an action or being. This construct has been used from Modernity onward to condemn slavery and torture as violations of human dignity. In spelling it out, we can come to a better understanding of what “dignity” means and become aware that there exists a quite useful place for this notion in our ethical thought, albeit a modest one.

To read into the mind of another person has for a long time been a fantasy—and sometimes a vague possibility. In science fiction, there are stories of aliens who are able to decipher the thoughts of other beings using some type of device. When I was a boy, I remember reading a cartoon of Bibi Fricotin, in which Bibi, a young boy like me, found some glasses that allowed him to read other people’s thoughts. For a time, I was afraid when I came across adults wearing glasses. With such devices, privacy and childish innocence would be in jeopardy, but fortunately, this was only a remote possibility. The idea would be worrying for lay people, ethicists and lawyers, but it is only a fantasy. Recently, with the development...

Les textes rassembles ici marquent un tournant decisif de la philosophie biranienne: apres avoir developpe sa pensee dans les Memoires couronnes (tomes II, III, IV, VI), Maine de Biran, revenant sur ses pas, estime qu'il a laisse sans solution les problemes de la metaphysiques classiques. Il s'efforce d'y repondre a partir de son propre point de vue et elabore a cet effet ses theories de la croyance et de l'absolu: l'etre ne se reduit pas au phenomene qui le manifeste; etre, ce n'est pas etre percu. C'est dans les Rapports des sciences naturelles avec la psychologie que Biran traite pour la premiere fois ces questions de maniere detaillee, ce qui l'oblige a reprendre sa distinction du sujet et de l'objet, et a revoir sa critique de Condillac et des cartesiens. On trouvera aussi dans ce volume plusieurs opuscules de la meme epoque abordant ces questions, et notamment des discours prononces a la societe philosophique qu'il animait alors.

Biotechnologies – synthetic biology in particular – are sometimes blamed for playing God or manifesting hubris, that is, for evincing the vicious attitude of transcending the limits of human agency. In trying to create living organisms, we would adopt an attitude that is immoral for human beings. In this article, I want to show that this blame is unwarranted. I distinguish two aspects of the argument, which claims that it is impossible for human beings to create life and immoral to attempt it. I argue that if we adopt a conception of what life consists of in agreement with the scientific world view, there is no place for hubris. Finally, I maintain that even if we accept a non-scientific conception of life (a vitalist or a supernatural one), we are not in a position to formulate the blame against synthetic biologists because what they do cannot contravene this vitalist or supernaturalist view.