Michael Carrick

Neuroenhancements have the potential to dramatically increase our intelligence, memory, motivation, and attention, to name a few ways such technology can benefit us. But can neuroenhancements increase our moral status as well? I argue in the affirmative. A higher moral status than personhood is both possible and likely given advancements in neuroenhancements. Some have argued that personhood is the highest moral status possible, so the notion of a post-person is conceptually confused. I respond by presenting an inductive argument with the conclusion that a higher moral status than personhood is both possible and likely, given the potential of neuroenhancements. While making my argument I confront the inexpressibility problem, the claim that we cannot give an account of what a higher moral status than personhood would be like. I conclude the paper with an answer to the inexpressibility challenge, by suggesting an account of a higher moral status than personhood.

In Living Well Now and in the Future: Why Sustainability Matters, Randall Curren and Ellen Metzger formulate an ethics of sustainability, conceptually connecting sustainability with ongoing opportunities for people to live well. Part of the sustainability ethics they develop is a principle called the Preservation of Opportunity Principle. My goal in this paper is to analyze the Preservation of Opportunity Principle, and amend the principle in light of certain considerations that are not at the forefront of Curren and Metzger’s project. Specifically, I want to develop the principle in a slightly different way given concerns about the noninstrumental value of nonhuman animals, concerns that are integral to a comprehensive environmental ethical theory.