![]() We begin with the most compelling argument-justice. They differ as regards their nature and cogency. Reflecting on the desirability of research that is explicitly aimed at life extension, we shall present three serious objections, relating to justice, to the community and to the meaning of life. In the second case, we are dealing with a kind of enhancement 7 to which the concept of a “right to” is ill‐suited, and that raises a series of philosophical and ethical questions. In the first case, we deal with the possession and continuation of something we have a right to maintain. 3Īlthough we agree that being alive is intrinsically valuable, we think that there is a fundamental difference between the desirability of being alive within the limits of the average life expectancy and the desirability of being alive beyond those limits. ![]() 6 We are not opposed to the latter interventions but focus on the former, increasing human life expectancy beyond the average as a primary goal, merely because there exists, as Glannon puts it, “the deeper conviction that there is intrinsic value in living much longer than we presently do, given that being alive is intrinsically valuable”. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Focusing on interventions in biological ageing, one can distinguish between research that is first and foremost aimed at prolonging life by slowing or even arresting ageing processes and research that is directed at combating the diseases that seem to be intrinsically connected with biological ageing. 1 Optimistic views of the possibility of achieving this goal through the latest developments in medicine feature increasingly in serious scientific and philosophical discussion. The wish to extend the human lifespan has a long tradition in many cultures.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |