Michael Hauskeller

Famously, Bernard Williams has argued that although death is an evil if it occurs when we still have something to live for, we have no good reason to desire that our lives be radically extended because any such life would at some point reach a stage when we become indifferent to the world and ourselves. This is supposed to be so bad for us that it would be better if we died before that happens. Most critics have rejected Williams’ arguments on the grounds that it is far from certain that we will run out of things to live for, and I don't contest these objections. Instead, I am trying to show that they do not affect the persuasiveness of Williams’ argument, which in my reading does not rely on the claim that we will inevitably run out of things to live for, but on the far less contentious claim that it is not unthinkable we will do so and the largely ignored claim that if that happens, we will have died too late.

The worst of all possible worlds: Arthur Schopenhauer -- The despair of not being oneself: Soren Kierkegaard -- The interlinked terrors and wonders of God: Herman Melville -- The hell of no longer being able to love: Fyodor Dostoyevsky -- The inevitable end of everything: Leo Tolstoy -- The joy of living dangerously: Friedrich Nietzsche -- The dramatic richness of the concrete world: William James -- The only life that is really lived: Marcel Proust -- Our hopeless battle against the boundaries of language: Ludwig Wittgenstein -- The benign indifference of the world: Albert Camus.

The possibility of moral bioenhancement, and the alleged need for it, have been widely discussed both in ethics journals and the media since this type of enhancement was first proposed in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2008. Most prominently, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have argued that humans in their current condition are simply not good enough to deal effectively with the global problems we face today and that, if we want to have any hope of saving the world from “ultimate harm,” we need to find ways to morally enhance people, using psychopharmaceuticals, neurostimulation, gene editing, or whatever other biological method we can think of that might do the trick. Persson and Savulescu's 2012 book on the subject, Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement, has very much determined the direction of the debate. However, what remains contentious is the question of whether the kind of enhancement that Persson and Savulescu envisage is really desirable and actually feasible. Earlier in 2016, two books on moral bioenhancement were published, namely John Harris's How to Be Good: The Possibility of Moral Enhancement and Harris Wiseman's The Myth of the Moral Brain: The Limits of Moral Enhancement. Harris's book focuses on the desirability of moral bioenhancement, and Wiseman's primarily on its feasibility. Both reject Persson and Savulescu's proposal and approach, but for very different reasons.

The papers collected in this volume examine moral enhancement: the idea that we should morally improve people through the manipulation of their biological constitution. Whether moral enhancement is possible or even desirable is highly controversial. Proponents argue that it is necessary if we are to address various social ills and avert catastrophic climate change. Detractors have raised a variety of concerns, some of a practical nature and others of principle. Perhaps most fundamentally, however, the proposal forces us to ask anew what being moral actually means, in order for the idea of moral enhancement to make sense at all. The present collection both addresses these issues and moves the debate beyond its current parameters, bringing together authors with a wide range of perspectives and areas of expertise. Chapters variously draw on experimental psychology, social philosophy, pragmatism, Kantian and Aristotelian moral philosophy, and the ethics of care, sex, and psychedelics.

When Jonathan Swift published “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People of Being a Burden on their Country or Parents, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick” in 1729, many early readers were shocked and repulsed. Yet if a similar proposal were published today in a reputable academic journal, we could not be sure of its satirical character: it might well be entirely sincere. In late February this year, the Journal of Medical Ethics prepublished online a paper that can be seen as a modernized bioethical version of Swift's “Modest Proposal.” All the authors had done is present a “well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises” that allowed them to “proceed logically” from those premises to the conclusions.

This collection of papers aims to increase our understanding of a) what meaning in life is: how it is to be understood, what its constituents are, and how it can be properly distinguished from other features that are commonly thought to be required for a good life, such as happiness, b) in what way, if any, mortality can be said to be detrimental to a life's meaningfulness and what follows from this for the desirability of radical life extension and other alterations of the present human condition, and c) in what way, if any, death and mortality can be said to be requisites or at least constituents of a meaningful life.

Genetic engineering is still considered morally wrong by a large proportion of the public. Yet many scientists are puzzled about the public concern over a technology that, in their view, promises great benefits to humans and does not seem to cause more harm to animals than other practices which are rarely questioned. In this book, Michael Hauskeller takes public fears seriously and offers the idea of 'biological integrity' as a clarifying principle which can then be analyzed to show that seemingly irrational public concerns about genetic engineering are not so irrational and that a philosophically sound justification of those concerns can indeed be given.

In The Imperative of Responsibility, published in German in 1979 and in English five years later, Hans Jonas introduced a new moral imperative for the technological age that runs as follows : «Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life». This article has two objectives: firstly to clarify what it means to live, in Jonas’ sense, a genuine human life, and secondly whether we can still live such a life if we radically enhance ourselves the way transhumanists tell us we should. We use two concepts from Jonas’ thought to flesh out the notion of genuine humanity — the human condition and the idea of Man — and argue that human enhancement could indeed compromise both: a prospect to be avoided.

Climate change is one of the most urgent global problems that we face today. The causes are well understood and many solutions have been proposed; however, so far none have been successful. Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have argued that this is because our moral psychology is ill-equipped to deal with global problems such as this. They propose that in order to successfully mitigate climate change we should morally enhance ourselves. In this chapter we look at their proposal to see whether moral enhancement is indeed a viable solution to the climate crisis, and conclude that due to various theoretical and practical problems it most likely is not.

:It has been argued that moral bioenhancement is desirable even if it would make it impossible for us to do what is morally required. Others find this apparent loss of freedom deplorable. However, it is difficult to see how a world in which there is no moral evil can plausibly be regarded as worse than a world in which people are not only free to do evil, but also where they actually do it, which would commit us to the seemingly paradoxical view that, under certain circumstances, the bad can be better than the good. Notwithstanding, this view is defended here.

In Phenomenological Bioethics: Medical Technologies, Human Suffering, and the Meaning of Being Alive, the Swedish philosopher Fredrik Svenaeus aims to show how the continental tradition of phenomenology can enrich bioethical debates by adding important but often‐ignored perspectives, namely, that of lived experience. Phenomenology focuses not on supposedly objective, scientifically validated facts, but on the “life world” of the individuals affected by a situation. Individuals' life worlds consist of their experience of their own lived bodies (or Leiber) and the meaning structures of their everyday worlds. A phenomenologically informed and oriented bioethics would seek to take those life worlds into account when considering what should be done in a particular ethically challenging situation.Svenaeus reminds us that there is generally more to an illness than just a malfunction of the body that can be causally explained and treated accordingly. The fundamental insight that Svenaeus develops in his new book is that our illnesses are often, if not always, crises of meaning.