Gordon, Emma C. (2024) Human enhancement and augmented reality. Philosophy and Technology, 37: 17. ISSN 2210-5433
AI Summary:
Bioconservative philosophers argue against cognitive enhancement, citing concerns about achievement and authenticity. However, this argument does not extend to augmented reality-driven cognitive enhancement.AI Topics:
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (765kB)
Bioconservative bioethicists (e.g., Kass, 2002, Human Dignity and Bioethics, 297–331, 2008; Sandel, 2007; Fukuyama, 2003) offer various kinds of philosophical arguments against cognitive enhancement—i.e., the use of medicine and technology to make ourselves “better than well” as opposed to merely treating pathologies. Two notable such bioconservative arguments appeal to ideas about (1) the value of achievement, and (2) authenticity. It is shown here that even if these arguments from achievement and authenticity cut ice against specifically pharmacologically driven cognitive enhancement, they do not extend over to an increasingly viable form of technological cognitive enhancement – namely, cognitive enhancement via augmented reality. An important result is that AR-driven cognitive enhancement aimed at boosting performance in certain cognitive tasks might offer an interesting kind of “sweet spot” for proponents of cognitive enhancement, allowing us to pursue many of the goals of enhancement advocates without running into some of the most prominent objections from bioconservative philosophers.
Title | Human enhancement and augmented reality |
---|---|
Creators | Gordon, Emma C. |
Identification Number | 10.1007/s13347-024-00702-6 |
Date | 5 February 2024 |
Divisions | College of Arts & Humanities > School of Humanities > Philosophy |
Publisher | Springer |
URI | https://pub.demo35.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/365 |
---|
Item Type | Article |
---|---|
Depositing User | Unnamed user with email ejo1f20@soton.ac.uk |
Date Deposited | 11 Jun 2025 16:37 |
Revision | 19 |
Last Modified | 12 Jun 2025 09:52 |
![]() |