Erik Krag

Ken Daley has argued that cognitive enhancements aiming to improve evaluative judgment and self-control should be permissible on the same grounds as vaccinations: both reduce susceptibility to harm without causing comparable detriment. In this commentary, I argue that this analogy collapses upon closer inspection. I contend that Daley’s proposal faces a dilemma: it must be interpreted either as a form of moral enhancement or as an enhancement of prudential judgment. If the former, it entangles the vaccine analogy in the debate regarding compulsory bioenhancement, raising intractable problems regarding autonomy and the imposition of contested values that do not apply to somatic medicine. If the latter, I argue that such enhancements would structurally bias decision-making toward safety. This ‘hyper-prudence’ would not merely reduce harmful recklessness but could inadvertently eliminate the ‘poor judgment’ required for transformative human achievements and political solidarity—risks that are often only vindicated retrospectively. Finally, I argue that the transformative nature of such enhancements undermines the possibility of the very informed consent that the vaccination model presumes.

New medical technologies promise to allow us to transform our core characteristics. Some see these technologies as filled with promise. Others see them as filled with existential risk. David DeGrazia argues that personal identity concerns raised by opponents to enhancement technology fail to impugn attempts by autonomous agents to bring about enhancements with which they autonomously identify. In advancing this argument DeGrazia evaluates five supposedly inviolable core narrative characteristics, concluding that none of these characteristics are in fact inviolable so long as the individual contemplating transformation autonomously identifies with the change they decide to make. Employing insights gleaned from LA Paul’s recent work on the subject of transformative experiences I will argue that at least for some transformations, the prospects for autonomous identification are slim at best. The upshot will be that many of the core narrative traits discussed by DeGrazia will be inviolable in practice, if not in principle.

Drawing on Christopher Boorse's Biostatistical Theory (BST), Norman Daniels contends that a genuine health need is one which is necessary to restore normal functioning – a supposedly objective notion which he believes can be read from the natural world without reference to potentially controversial normative categories. But despite his claims to the contrary, this conception of health harbors arbitrary evaluative judgments which make room for intractable disagreement as to which conditions should count as genuine health needs and therefore which needs should be met. I begin by offering a brief summary of Boorse's BST, the theory to which Daniels appeals for providing the conception of health as normal functioning upon which his overall distributive scheme rests. Next, I consider what I call practical objections to Daniels's use of Boorse's theory. Finally I recount Elseljin Kingma's theoretical objection to Boorse's BST and discuss its impact on Daniels's overall theory. Though I conclude that Boorse's view, so weakened, will no longer be able to sustain the judgments which Daniels's theory uses it to reach, in the end, I offer Daniels an olive branch by briefly sketching an alternative strategy for reaching suitably objective conclusions regarding the health and/or disease status of various conditions.

Drawing on Christopher Boorse's Biostatistical Theory (BST), Norman Daniels contends that a genuine health need is one which is necessary to restore normal functioning – a supposedly objective notion which he believes can be read from the natural world without reference to potentially controversial normative categories. But despite his claims to the contrary, this conception of health harbors arbitrary evaluative judgments which make room for intractable disagreement as to which conditions should count as genuine health needs and therefore which needs should be met. I begin by offering a brief summary of Boorse's BST, the theory to which Daniels appeals for providing the conception of health as normal functioning upon which his overall distributive scheme rests. Next, I consider what I call practical objections to Daniels's use of Boorse's theory. Finally I recount Elseljin Kingma's theoretical objection to Boorse's BST and discuss its impact on Daniels's overall theory. Though I conclude that Boorse's view, so weakened, will no longer be able to sustain the judgments which Daniels's theory uses it to reach, in the end, I offer Daniels an olive branch by briefly sketching an alternative strategy for reaching suitably objective conclusions regarding the health and/or disease status of various conditions

Anita Silvers (1998) has criticized those who argue that members of marginalized groups are vulnerable to a special threat posed by physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and voluntary active euthanasia (VAE). She argues that paternalistic measures prohibiting PAS/VAE in order to protect these groups only serve to marginalize them further by characterizing them as belonging to a definitively weak class. I offer a new conception of vulnerability, one that demonstrates how rich, educated, white males, who are typically regarded as having their autonomy enhanced by their social status, are just as, if not more, vulnerable to threats posed by PAS/VAE as a result of the harmful social messages at work just below the surface of contemporary Western culture. I use this new conception of vulnerability to reinforce arguments for continued statutory prohibitions on PAS/VAE

Plantinga argues that cases involving ‘fixed’ beliefs refute the coherentist thesis that a belief’s belonging to a coherent set of beliefs suffices for its having justification (warrant). According to Plantinga, a belief cannot be justified if there is a ‘lack of fit’ between it and its subject’s experiences. I defend coherentism by showing that if Plantinga means to claim that any ‘lack of fit’ destroys justification, his argument is obviously false. If he means to claim that significant ‘lack of fit’ destroys justification, his argument suffers a critical lack of support. Either way, Plantinga’s argument fails and coherentism emerges unscathed.