Sex and the Posthuman Condition

Hauskeller, Michael

doi:10.1057/9781137393500

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such inquiry, though, at once is stymied by the fact that, if they are indeed indistinguishable from humans and as far as we can tell should thence receive the same ethical considerations as bona fide Homo sapiens, then the issue of just what tasks they should be accomplishing would become not merely moot but perhaps inimical to the ethical project. That is, whereas humans are not formed to be certain specialties, humanoid automata may be specialized as: sex or companionship suppliers (Hauskeller 2014), infant caregivers (Sharkey and Sharkey 2010) elderly caregivers (Sharkey and Sharkey 2012), teachers (Sharkey 2015), medical or technical-medical practitioners (Santoni de Sio and van Wynsberghe 2016), or military killers (Arkin 2013;O'Çonnell 2014;Sharkey 2016). Therefore, if MHA are indeed to be maximally humanlike, and humanlikeness entails being neither a slave nor having their social-behavioral traits predetermined (serving as an automaton sex professional or killer warrior), then an MHA should indeed be fully autonomous in terms of what kind of life it should live.…”

Section: Distinguishing Mha From Related Humanoids In Terms Of Place mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research for the construction of maximally humanlike automata: the paradox of unattainable informed consent

Miller

2017

Ethics Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the Nuremberg Code and the first Declaration of Helsinki, globally there has been increasing adoption and adherence to procedures for ensuring that human subjects in research are as well informed as possible of the study’s reasons and risks and voluntarily consent to serving as subject. To do otherwise is essentially viewed as violation of the human research subject’s legal and moral rights. However, with the recent philosophical concerns about responsible robotics, the limits and ambiguities of research-subjects ethical codes become apparent on the matter of constructing automata that maximally resemble human beings (as defined hereunder). In this case, the automata themselves, as products of research and development, are in the very process of their construction subjects of research and development. However, such research faces a paradox: The subjects cannot give their informed consent to this research for their own development, although their consent would be needed for the research. According to ethical codes, this research would be unethical. The article then explores whether the background concepts giving rise to this paradox could be reframed in order to allow such research to proceed ethically.

show abstract

Section: Distinguishing Mha From Related Humanoids In Terms Of Place mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research for the construction of maximally humanlike automata: the paradox of unattainable informed consent

Miller

2017

Ethics Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And so it is with the debate on human "enhancement" (for overviews, see Earp, Sandberg, Kahane, & Savulescu, 2014;Hauskeller, 2013Hauskeller, , 2014. As participants in this debate ourselves, we admit that we have often been tempted to take a clear stand either for or against enhancement-or for or against a particular kind of enhancement-even though we know very well that it is never so easy.…”

Section: Human Enhancementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binocularity in Bioethics—and Beyond: A Review of Erik Parens,Shaping Our Selves: On Technology, Flourishing, and a Habit of Thinking

Earp

Hauskeller

2016

The American Journal of Bioethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1Parens (2015) defends a habit of thinking he calls "binocularity," which involves switching between analytical lenses (much as one must switch between seeing the duck vs. the rabbit in Wittgenstein's famous example). Applying this habit of thought to a range of debates in contemporary bioethics, Parens urges us to acknowledge the ways in which our personal intuitions and biases shape our thinking about contentious moral issues. In this review of Parens's latest book, we reflect on our own position as participants in the so-called "enhancement" debates, where a binocular approach could be especially useful. In particular, we consider the case of "love drugs," a subject on which we have sometimes reached very different conclusions. We finish with an analogy to William James's (1907) distinction between "tenderminded" rationalists and "tough-minded" empiricists, and draw some general lessons for improving academic discourse.

show abstract

“…HIVE advocates could then most clearly represent their projects as the acronym itself implies: The projects intend to deploy techniques now available or anticipated to be available within a few decades expressly to refashion the human form such that those alterations mark what, for the inventors, are improvements. In its publicity, HIVE advocacy would most responsibly admit that the prospect of universal 'betterments' of this sort to the human form is fraught with problems of: (1) how extensive these alterations will be enforced upon the human population, whether de jure or de facto; (2) who exactly is the 'we' who is going to determine these alterations upon the human form; and (3) the fact that 'betterment' is much more elusive and paradoxical, in terms of realizing it on the human form, than this enticing term would lead one to believe (see Hauskeller 2013Hauskeller , 2014also Agar 2010). In short, less zealous salespersonship is needed and in its place more sober, analytic, commonsense philosophical examinationin the analytic traditionof terminology and the presuppositions, logic, and argument based upon it.…”

Section: Conclusion To Related Normative Issues Concerning Hive and Vmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anticipating the ultimate innovation, volitional evolution: can it not be promoted or attempted responsibly?

Miller

2015

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aspiration for volitional evolution, or human evolution directed by humans themselves, has increased in philosophical, scientific, technical, and commercial literature. The prospect of shaping the very being who is the consumer of all other innovations offers great commercial potential, one to which all other innovations would in effect be subservient. Actually an amalgam of projected technical/commercial developments, this prospective innovation has practical and ethical ramifications. However, because it is often discussed in a scientific way (specifically that of evolutionary theory), it first calls for examination in terms of common scientific approaches to evolution. Yet, as evolutionary-theory controversies point up, evolution may be considered as neither a directed nor a directable processa problem for the ontology of volitional evolution. One challenge for theories and programs aiming to implement the proposed innovation is then whether it is theoretically coherent. While I offer responses to the challenge in the form of objections, these in turn remain problematic. Two central issues of responsible innovation arise: (1) If this prospect were feasible, would it be responsible to implement it, and (2) if it is not even theoretically coherent, is it responsible for innovators, even this early-on, to keep promoting it as if it were?

show abstract

Sex and the Posthuman Condition

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

Responsible research for the construction of maximally humanlike automata: the paradox of unattainable informed consent

Responsible research for the construction of maximally humanlike automata: the paradox of unattainable informed consent

Binocularity in Bioethics—and Beyond: A Review of Erik Parens,Shaping Our Selves: On Technology, Flourishing, and a Habit of Thinking

Anticipating the ultimate innovation, volitional evolution: can it not be promoted or attempted responsibly?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About