Technology and Enhancement (2021-2022)

Philosophy of Technology
Institute of Philosophy
University of Leuven
2021-2022
Philosophy of Technology
1. Is technological enhancement a moral problem?
2. Is technology morally neutral?
3. Is all science technoscience?
4. Does technology determine society?
5. What are the moral problems with AI?
6. Does AI create a responsibility gap?

Technology and Enhancement
17th century: “we live in the best possible of all worlds” (Leibniz)
↔ 1755: earthquake and tsunami  destruction Lisbon
Voltaire writes Candide:
A criticism of Leibniz’s uncritical optimism and belief in progress.

Many inconveniences from Candide have disappeared:
Political stability, democracy, abolition of slavery, etc.
We owe a lot to technology!
For example: much better pain control, longer life expectancy, etc.
(However, we are not naive techno-optimists.)

These technologies can have three objectives:
(1) To cure (therapy): MRI scans for the treatment of tumors
= elimination of disease = becoming healthy
(2) To prevent (therapy): injection against influenza
= prevention of a possible disease in the (near) future
(3) To enhance (non-therapeutic)

Enhancement is ...
... a deliberative intervention,
... using technology (in the broad sense), ...
... for 1) the improvement of the mental and physical possibilities...
... which lie beyond ‘the normal’ or ‘natural’…
… for 2) the introduction of currently non-existing properties.

Enhancement is artificial improvement,
… but nut all artificial improvement is enhancement:
training and imitation.
 Non-technological and technological artificial improvement
AND there is also natural improvement

Enhancement in sport: running faster
Aesthetic enhancement: having a more beautiful body
Cognitive enhancement: becoming more intelligent
Moral enhancement: becoming a better human being

‘Smart drugs’ (beta blockers) to work harder, faster, and longer
Nanotechnology to connect neural tissue with electronic cicuits
Cosmetic surgery to make my big ears a little bit smaller
Genetic engineering to have excellent children

Many enhancement technologies are considered to be morally
problematic by a lot of (non)philosohers.
Anti-enhancement: Sandel, Habermas, Fukuyama, etc.
Liberals: not always pro (inequality)  anti-anti-enhancement
 Asymmetry: always contra, but not necessarely pro

What are the conservatives’ arguments?
How convincing are they?
The starting point is negative (attack!),
... which, of course, doesn’t mean we don’t have problems with enhancement
... which, of course, is not meaningless to the debate.

Reason to be skeptical (I):
Technological enhancement is very old.
Literacy: - increased communicative abilities

- understanding the past via written documents
- expanding scientific knowledge
Agriculture: - living together for a long time

- creating a surplus  exchange and peace
- better well-being: better resistance and greater longevity
Reason to be skeptical (II):
Technological enhancement is widespread.
Highers buildings,
bigger bridges,
more beautiful bodies,
better computers,
better weapons.
The ten best known anti-enhancement arguments:
(1) The argument from intelligent design
(2) The Lucebert-argument
(3) The argument from equality
(4) The argument from competition
(5) The argument from human nature

(6) The argument from illness
(7) The argument from prevention
(8) The argument from therapy
(9) The argument from risk
(10) The argument form morality

(1) The argument from intelligent design
The world has a hierarchical structure, …
... wherein everything (God, humans, animals, etc.) has a fixed place …
… that is clearly distinguished from the other positions
Cf. Essentialism
It is not allowed to change the structure. Why?
First reason
Reality is not only structured hierarchically (descriptive proposition), …
… it is good that the structure exists (evaluative proposition).
(Reason to be skeptical: unclear why such an order would be good.)

Second reason
The world’s structure is God’s product.
 If technology enables people to do things that normally only Gods can do, …
… then this leads to a change of the world’s structure, …
…. which means that one has no respect regarding God and His works.
What are the practical consequences?
To enhance is forbidden!
Reason? Enhancement could change the structure

(human beings with wings; no death; etc.)
To cure is required!
What are the problems with this argument?
1. The structure must be preserved, …
… but not all improvement leads to revolution (running faster, etc.).
2. Darwinism shows that there is no Intelligent Designer
 Enhancement cannot be disrespectful

3. There is no unique and universal property (regarding humans)
 Enhancement cannot disturb a hierarchical structure
4. Maybe God wants us to enhance
 Anti-enhancement may be disrespectful, enhancement respectful

(2) The Lucebert-argument
“Everything of value is fragile”
= if there is value, there’s vulnerability or imperfection.
 No enhancement, we don’t want a world without value

Intuitively attractive:
awareness of your child’s vulnerability, makes the relationship valuable
There are several difficulties with this argument:
1. Not all improvements correct vulnerability or imperfection
2. “Not everything that is fragile is valuable”.

3. Imperfection causes a lot of misery.
 Cancer is related to vulnerability, but needs to be treated.
4. Those wo argue against enhancement prefer to live now, with less

vulnerability.
 Everyone would rather go to a dentist now than 100 years ago.
5. Enhancement technologies do not completely eliminate vulnerability.

(3) The argument from equality
Many enhancement technologies are very expensive, ....
.... which can create or enlarge a gap between rich and poor
Rich become smarter, faster, stronger than the poor, and therefore richer.
 Technology is a moral problem because the danger is that it undermines

social stability.
This argument has a consequentialist character (Cf. Bentham):
looking at the positive and negative effects.
How strong are the effects? How important What is the relationship?
That gives a reason/ground for moral choice.
A consequentialist reason is not necessarily decisive:

duties (Kant) and virtues (Aristotle) can outweigh the effects
Cf. Deontic limits

What are the problems with this argument?
1. Not fundamental.
becoming cheaper  available to everyone  no threat to stability
↔ lower price is not a guaranteed:
Today, many technologies are still very expensive  maybe also for enhancement
technologies
2. Based on the wrong assumption.
Enhancement is a product of the market (not of the state)
State only looks at the harmful consequences (safety, health, etc.)
↔ history teaches us that the state provides (technological) enhancement,

with an eye for distributive justice
For example: health and education

3. The argument misses the point.
The problem is financial inequality.
Reduce the inequality, then the danger disappears too.
↔ some inequalities are impossible or very difficult to change

(4) The argument from competition:
One wants to be better, ... but always in comparison with others.
 Negative effects:
It will ask a lot of energy in terms of money and health.
= consequentialist argumentation
What is the problem with this argumentation?
It starts from empirical assumptions that are not 100% sure:
- Everyone will (want to) use it
- The technology will have the same effect on everyone

(5) The argument from human nature
Human nature = characteristics shared by most people and expressed

spontaneously in different contexts
= the given ( conservative)
You must show respect for the given  you may not change it
 Improvement by technology of human nature is disrespectful

What are the problems with this argumentation?
1. It is unclear why we should respect our nature.
2. Even if we should respect what is given, …
… why shouldn’t we then be allowed to change nature in any way?
We can change something, and at the same time be respectful...

...because we only change one aspect
3. Human nature also includes bad qualities: selfishness, aggression, etc.
If it is true that change is disrespectful, …
… does it outweigh the undesirable consequences that follow from the

bad side of our human nature?
= is respect a decisive argument?

4. Human nature is a product of evolution
= a function of fitness and reproductive ability.
These properties are ‘sub-optimal’ from a moral point of view.
Cf. Is-ought
5. Doesn’t enhancement belong to human nature?
- We seem to be driven by a desire to improve, since numerous cultural

realizations are focused on enhancement.
- Through genetic evolution we inherit numerous traits: ability to

improve through instruction and imitation
 If enhancement belongs to human nature,

changing that nature cannot be disrespectful
(6) The argument from illness
To cure is good, enhancement is bad (whatever the reasons may be).
 Technology used for enhancement/to cure is morally wrong/good, …
… because it enhances/cures.
Assumption: clear difference between to cure and to enhance

One can criticize this line of reasoning by focussing…
… on the assumed distinction between to cure and to enhance.
≠ criticizing the idea that enhancement is bad
≠ arguing that enhancement is never problematic

To problematize the distinction: a sand mountain
Everyone knows that three grains is not a sand mountain, …
… while five million of sand grains is.
But when exactly does a big amount of grains become a mountain?

What about the relationship between disease and health?
It is often clear that a person is very healthy (sand) or ill (mountain).
But those who are ill have often gone through a process in which
psychological or physical capacities begin to diminish.
When does this process of decay lead to illness?

A student has an IQ of 100, ....
.... and deliberately takes a medicine against migraine, ....
.... because it has as a side effect an increase of the IQ by 30.
Taking the medicine is enhancement, …
… and according to some therefore undesirable.

Imagine another student with an IQ of 60.
= cognitive disability
If this student would take the same medicine for the same reason, ...
.... then we would say that this is morally unproblematic.
Reason? This is clearly a case of therapy.

The boundary between intellectual disability and ‘normal’ is unclear!
= you can’t demarcate where disability ends and ‘normality’ begins
Some manuals set the limit on an IQ of 70, ...
... but that is purely conventional, a matter of agreement.

If there is no clear line between disability and normality, ...
... then you cannot say whether technology is to cure or to enhance.
 In certain cases you cannot say, ....
.... that technology is wrong/good because it is to enhance/to cure.
The assumed distinction is an unsolid ground for ethics of technology.

(7) The argument from prevention
Again: therapy (prevention) is good, to enhance is wrong.
Medical technology is good/wrong, because it is prevention/enhancement.
Assumption: clear difference between prevention and enhancement.
Is that justified?
The critique is also similar:
In some cases, it appears that technology clearly leading to

enhancement (= a sandbank = health), ... ...
.... not only leads to enhancement, ....
.... but also has a preventive effect.

A student with an IQ of 100 takes the same medicine, …
… because it leads to increasement of IQ (= clear enhancement).
Without medication: anxiety, depression  reduced immunity
Taking the medication has a preventive effect.
 Enhancement is indistinguishable from prevention.

When you hold that prevention is good and enhancement bad, ...
... you can’t always say that the technology is good or bad, …
… because it is used for prevention or enhancement.
Indeed, some technologies are both prevention and enhancement.
The assumed distinction is not a good basis for ethics of technology.

Arguments (6) and (7) rely on the distinction enhancement-therapy.
Also the refutation is similar: sometimes you cannot distinguish between therapy and
enhancement.
Yet there is a small difference:
- Argument (6): you do not know whether it is enhancement or therapy

= one cannot distinguish because of ignorance
- Argument (7): you know that it is both enhancement and therapy

= one cannot distinguish because of knowledge
(8) The argument from therapy
We distinguish different kinds of effects:
- desirable and undesirable

- foreseen and unforeseen
- intended and unintended
Not all foreseen effects are intended,

while all intended effects are foreseen.
Take, as an example, the same medicine against migraine, …
… with the foreseen and unintended effect of increasing IQ.
Nobody believes it is problematic to take the medicine, …
… if the purpose is to become healthy (= to cure as intended effect)
… even if it increases the IQ (= enhancement as unintended effect).

Some thinkers, however, hold that enhancement is morally wrong…
… if it is not only a foreseen but also an intended effect.
Thus, we have different moral assessment of the same technology…
… because the technology causes different kinds of effect.

That is in line with our moral practice in other contexts.
Cancer is an undesirable effect of smoking.
- I encourage to smoke because of the cosy atmosphere

 Cancer is foreseen but unintended.
- I encourage to smoke because of the cancer

 Cancer is foreseen and intended.
Same effect (cancer), but (un)intended  other moral judgement

Some (anti-enhancement thinkers) argue as follows:
- technology is morally good because …

... to cure is the intended effect and enhancement the unintended effect
- technology is morally wrong because …

… enhancement is the intended effect.
Assumption: distinction between to cure and enhance as intended effect.

Like most people, the enhancement-opponent claims:
technology used to extend life is an example of enhancement.
That is a problem for the opponent of enhancement since …
… some technologies are used to cure deadly diseases.

Why is that a problem for the conservative?
The intended effect is to cure the deadly disease, …
... but because it is a deadly disease, purpose is to extend life.
To cure and to enhance are at the same time intended effects.

If one holds that to cure is good and to enhance (as intended effect)
is wrong, ...
... one can’t always conclude that technology is right or wrong.
Why? Some technologies intend both to cure and to enhance.
 The assumed differentiation between to cure and to enhance (as

an intended effect) is not a fertile ground for the moral assessment of
technology
(9) The argument from risk
Technologies often have major risks, ....
.... and because most of us live a good life, ....
... the risks are not worth taking.
 Enhancement technologies should not be used!

Not all technologies have major risks
 general prohibition seems not convincing
Nevertheless, the argumentation sounds plausible for two reasons:
- technologies often have high risks, and nobody wants higher risks
- several parts of the population do indeed have a high standard of living
But is that sufficient for a ban?

1. Major risks are not the privilege of enhancement technologies
- Scientific knowledge  created the risk of the extinction of human life, or at

least of civilization by a nuclear holocaust
- Transport has created the possibility of global pandemics
 Do not prohibit science and transport, therefore do not prohibit technology!
Big risks are a legitimate concern, but not a decisive argument.

2. It assumes that the welfare of today will never disappear
 Maybe we need technological enhancements to preserve it.
Cf. Tancredi in The Leopard: “To keep things the same, things
will need to change.”
= a conservative argument for enhancement

3. The argumentation forgets that welfare is not well distributed
= problem of distributive justice (cf. Rawls)
There are many goods, and for the sake of equality, we have a moral duty to
distribute those goods as equal as possible (Cf. fairness as statistical equality)
 Technological enhancements may be needed to make sure that countries with

less welfare will have more welfare.
= From prohibited to morally required

- Enhancements of existing capacities for impulse control/altruism
Individuals that are not subject to sufficient control  enhancement as a strategy for
catastrophic violence
- Enhancements to help us to adapt physiologically to climate change
Gene therapies to improve the capacity for thermal regulation of the skin’s
resistance to cancers.
(10) The argument from morality
We can think of technological enhancements, ....
.... which are good for all kinds of moral issues.
We don’t have to make any more effort anymore

= atrophy of moral power
Prohibiting technology, because our ‘will to power’ will be destroyed.

What is problematic about this argumentation?
1. In some cases the loss of a ‘natural capacity’ does not

outweigh the gains from technology
Example: GPS
Objection: orientation skills are clearly different from moral

powers!
Is that objection convincing?
People learn moral rules
The use of those rules replaces autonomous moral deliberation.
It reduces this ability, but learning rules is more advantageous.
But if rules are unproblematic, why would technology be problematic?

2. Technology can also increase our moral powers!
Research: resisting temptations is exhausiting

= recovery asks a lot of time!
 during the recovery there’s no resistance
Same research: technological intervention (ingesting glucose) shortens

the recovery period!
 This enables us to resist more quickly.

Thanks for listening,
time for discussion!

Technology and Enhancement (2021-2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology and Enhancement (2021-2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philosophy of Technology

4. Does technology determine society?

5. What are the moral problems with AI?

6. Does AI create a responsibility gap?

↔ 1755: earthquake and tsunami  destruction Lisbon

Voltaire writes Candide:

A criticism of Leibniz’s uncritical optimism and belief in progress.

Political stability, democracy, abolition of slavery, etc.

We owe a lot to technology!

(However, we are not naive techno-optimists.)

(1) To cure (therapy): MRI scans for the treatment of tumors

= elimination of disease = becoming healthy

(2) To prevent (therapy): injection against influenza

= prevention of a possible disease in the (near) future

(3) To enhance (non-therapeutic)

... a deliberative intervention,

... using technology (in the broad sense), ...

... for 1) the improvement of the mental and physical possibilities...

... which lie beyond ‘the normal’ or ‘natural’…

… for 2) the introduction of currently non-existing properties.

… but nut all artificial improvement is enhancement:

training and imitation.

 Non-technological and technological artificial improvement

AND there is also natural improvement

Enhancement in sport: running faster

Aesthetic enhancement: having a more beautiful body

Cognitive enhancement: becoming more intelligent

Moral enhancement: becoming a better human being

‘Smart drugs’ (beta blockers) to work harder, faster, and longer

Nanotechnology to connect neural tissue with electronic cicuits

Cosmetic surgery to make my big ears a little bit smaller

Genetic engineering to have excellent children

Anti-enhancement: Sandel, Habermas, Fukuyama, etc.

Liberals: not always pro (inequality)  anti-anti-enhancement

 Asymmetry: always contra, but not necessarely pro

How convincing are they?

The starting point is negative (attack!),

... which, of course, is not meaningless to the debate.

Technological enhancement is very old.

Literacy: - increased communicative abilities

Agriculture: - living together for a long time

Reason to be skeptical (II):

Technological enhancement is widespread.

(1) The argument from intelligent design

(2) The Lucebert-argument

(3) The argument from equality

(4) The argument from competition

(5) The argument from human nature

(7) The argument from prevention

(8) The argument from therapy

(9) The argument from risk

(10) The argument form morality

The world has a hierarchical structure, …

… that is clearly distinguished from the other positions

It is not allowed to change the structure. Why?

Reality is not only structured hierarchically (descriptive proposition), …

… it is good that the structure exists (evaluative proposition).

(Reason to be skeptical: unclear why such an order would be good.)

The world’s structure is God’s product.

… then this leads to a change of the world’s structure, …

What are the practical consequences?

Reason? Enhancement could change the structure