John W Newman

Worldwide populations are aging with economic development as a result of public health initiatives and advances in therapeutic discoveries. Since 1850, life expectancy has advanced by 1 year for every four. Accompanying this change is the rapid development of anti‐aging science. There are three schools of thought in the field of aging science. One perspective is the life course approach, which considers that aging is a good and natural process to be embraced as a necessary and positive aspect of life, where the aim is to improve the quality of existing lifespan and “compress” morbidity. Another view is that aging is undesirable, and that rejuvenation and indeed immortality are possible since the biological basis of aging is understood, and therefore, strategies are possible for engineering negligible senescence. Finally, a hybrid approach is that life span can be extended by anti‐aging medicines but with uncertain effects on health. While these advances offer much promise, the ethical perspectives are seldom discussed in cross‐disciplinary settings. This article discusses some of the key ethical issues arising from recent advances in biogerontology.

The Indian Buddhist Mādhyamika master Candrakīrti (ca. 7th century CE) grounds his philosophy in _lokaprasiddhi_ / -_prasiddha_, “that which is common knowledge / generally accepted among people in the world.” This raises the question of whether Candrakīrti accepts _everything_ that is “common knowledge” or instead distinguishes and privileges certain justifiable beliefs within common knowledge. Tom J.F. Tillemans has argued that Candrakīrti advocates a “lowest common denominator” version of _lokaprasiddhi_ instead of a model which promotes “in some areas at least, more of a qualitative hierarchy of opinions and thus criticism by optimally qualified, insightful individuals.” In this way Candrakīrti is characterized as a “typical Prāsaṅgika” who advocates “a populist _lokaprasiddha_ and global error theory,” leading to “a dismal slough of relativism” in which Candrakīrti is compelled to uncritically acquise in the opinions of “average worldlings.” I argue that Candrakīrti instead employs a version of _lokaprasiddhi_ that distinguishes expert knowledge from the untutored notions of the _hoi polloi_. This argument is based upon a new interpretation of _āgama_ Candrakīrti twice quotes, and Candrakīrti’s usage of the terms _lokaprasiddhi_ / -_prasiddha_, _loka_- / _laukikavyavahāra_, _saṃvṛti_ and _saṃvṛtisatya_, and _laukika paramārtha_. I conclude that Candrakīrti presents himself as an expert in the determination of mundane affairs (_laukikārthaviniścayanipuṇa_), the foremost of which is the “mundane ultimate” (_laukika paramārtha_), the Buddha’s teaching of the path to liberation. Candrakīrti illucidates this for those following “the Victor’s path of reasoning” (_jinasya yuktipathānuyāyin_). He bases his philosophy in a position that is simply mundane (_laukika eva pakṣe sthitvā_), but which is nevertheless rationally demonstrable within the parameters of that which is common knowledge among people in the world (_lokaprasiddhi_).