Enhancement (Philosophy) Essay

Cognitive producement is the improvement of mavins mental capacity and or mental attributes such as soulality, where it is considered nonmandatory and not medically necessary (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). sweetener is diametric to treatment as treatment is linked to the curing of an illness, whereas sweetening is merely improving an already medically healthy consistence or mind, however, at times it is quite an difficult to draw a line between the two (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012).Types of enhancements involve improving wizards athletic abilities through the use of steroids, undergoing cosmetic surgery which is deemed medically unnecessary, or, reducing ones need to quiescence through the consumption of drugs such as Provigil. Enhancements can even get across things that are comm lone(prenominal) availed of every day, such as the consumption of caffein (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). there are many honest and practical stage businesss in coincidence to cognitive enhancement and whet her or not it should be allowed such as Authenticity (Keeping true to oneself), which is a key concern , with both proponents and opponents of cognitive enhancement interpreting authenticity in different ways (Parens, 2005). twain honorable frame proceeds lose developed which try to answer the questions raised by cognitive enhancement and indeed enhancement in general, these frameworks are cognise as the existentialist model (Self creation) and the Rousseauean model (Gratitude) (Parens, 2005).These frameworks differ on whether or not cognitive enhancement should be allowed, the existentialist model beingness in favour of cognitive enhancement and the Rousseauean model opposed to the covering of it (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). Along with authenticity there are other(a) major ethical concerns that could arise from the widespread use of cognitive enhancing methods, namely drugs (Butcher, 2003). Such concerns embarrass a possible increase in the severance between bass and poor an d the possibility of the loss of values, namely the value of hard work, which helps stupefy a valetkind being what they are (Butcher, 2003).Philosophers and indeed people in general who favour the existentialist model value autonomy greatly and therefore believe that so long as a charitable being does not harm another, they should be free to do with their body or mind what they please. If these things may be quite ridiculous and inadvisable, existentialist still believe that they should be condoned, so long as the person in question is well informed on the bug out (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012).There is excessively a view that Humans not only have the ability but may alike have the responsibility to enhance their condition, not only through normal everyday enhancements but also through coloured means, which are not seen as qualitatively different (within existentialist circles) to everyday enhancements (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). There are, however, some problems with this framewo rk. For instance, in many cases the psyche who is given a cognitive enhancement, is not always fully self-directed (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012).This is the case in many poor urban areas in the unite States, in many schools in these areas up to a triad of boys straight take Ritalin, even though a giant portion of them do not suffer from ADHD (Farah et al. 2004). Using enhancements to simply subdue easily disconcert and unruly minorren could be seen as ethically wrong, this is because a large percentage of children simply are naturally unruly and easily distracted (Farah et al. 2004).To change this, could be seen as changing the personality of the child in question to such an extent that they are indwellingly no longish the same child, here we see the question of authenticity rise once to a greater extent (Parens, 2005). It is in situations such as these that we see a clear allot between the two frameworks. Most proponents of framework one (self-creation) would be in favour of this sort of cognitive enhancement as they would view the child as essentially the same person, only improved, while the opponents of this framework score a different belief (Parens, 2005).Proponents of framework two, or the Rousseauean model, place great importance in the value of the given (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). In other words, they believe we should not tamper past our natural potential. This however gives rise to elusive questions, such as, where can we draw the line between natural and artificial enhancements? (Schmidt-Felzmann, 2012). Framework two argues that cognitive enhancement ignores fundamental facts about the human mind and its limits, it asserts that these limits should be respected. These beliefs could also be seen as a dishonour of authenticity.When we think of the effects that cognitive enhancement could have on human authenticity we think of the effects it might have on the identity element of an individual. While this is authoritative, it is also cardin al to look at the human course as a whole and how cognitive enhancement and enhancement in general might affect its authenticity. From the Stone Age right up to the current social age, humans have constantly strove to improve themselves and their forest of life. In recognition of this, it could be argued that to not enhance our current offer of being would be in violation of our nature and of our identity as human beings.When this view is taken it becomes clear that the Rousseauean model can also lead to a breach in authenticity, this, along with other reasons is mayhap why a large portion of philosophers show a plastered train of ambivalence towards the two frameworks when it comes to major ethical matters (Parens, 2005). Enhancement, cognitive enhancement in particular, raises many ethical concerns. As already discussed, authenticity is a prime concern, however there are also other important matters which need to be considered before any decision is made on whether or not cog nitive enhancement should be allowed.For instance, the introduction of cognitive enhancing drugs could lead to a widening in the gap between juicy and poor (Butcher, 2003). This would be that case as such drugs would likely be out of reach (financially) to the cut down classes of society. In the long term make headway problems would arise, as the poor would likely have little or no access to these cognitive enhancing drugs, the upper class would essentially develop into for the most part more intelligent beings. This would make it far harder for a member of the lower class to compete for college places or jobs (Butcher, 2003).It has been argued, however, that the risk of a widening of the gap between the wealthy and the poor should not be a agent to stand against the introduction of cognitive enhancers as enhancers such as third level education already do this (Butcher, 2003). Another ethical issue is the possibility of the loss of the value of hard work (Butcher, 2003). While this may not seem like such a pressing issue, one must first fully consider the implications this may have in the long term. Humans may use there increased level of intelligence irresponsibly due to a lack of experience gained from having to work hard to overcome obstacles.Along with these issues the safety of such drugs is also an important matter (Farah et al. 2004). It is clear from these observations that the possibility of distribution of cognitive enhancers amongst the public is a very contentious issue, which makes the question Should cognitive enhancement be allowed? a very difficult one to answer. In my opinion, cognitive enhancement should be allowed, although only under certain conditions. The production of such enhancers should be undertaken only by the government so as to ensure the fair and jibe distribution of cognitive enhancers amongst all social classes.Drugs should be extensively tested before mainstream introduction in order to assure the safety of the product. These measures may, however, not be exuberant. Governments would have the means to manipulate the public by introducing other properties to cognitive enhancing drugs, For instance they could use certain ingredients to create a more patriotic and docile population this would be a prime concern in politically unstable countries or in those of communist leanings.Should the replete(p) population of a country regularly take a drug, which was deemed essential to take, untold damage could be done to the human condition. A globe without free will could develop, with the world population under the control of one drug, and those who produced it. Perhaps the cognition of the human race is not yet evolved enough to consider its enhancement. Bibliography Parens, Erik. (2005) Authenticity and Ambivalence Toward Understanding the Enhancement debate battle of Hastings Center Report, Vol. 35, Number 3, May-June, pp.34-41. Schmidt-Felzmann, Heike. (2010) Personal Identity and Human Nature The Enh ancement Debate, Heike Schmidt-Felzmann 12/10/12. Philosophical questions & issues. online. Available at https//nuigalway. blackboard. com/webapps/ ingress/frameset. jsp? tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_31108_1%26url%3D%252Fwebapps%252Fblackboard%252Fexecute%252FdisplayIndividualContent%253Fmode%253Dview%2526content_id%253D_419734_1%2526course_id%253D_31108_1 (Accessed 03/12/12.)Butcher, James. (2003) Cognitive enhancement raises ethical concerns The Lancet, Vol 362 (9378) p. p 132133. Farah, Martha J. Illes, Judy. Cook-Deegan, Robert. Gardner, Howard. Kandel, Eric. King, Patricia. Parens, Eric. Sahakian, Barbara & Root Wolpe, Paul. (2004) Neurocognitive enhancement what can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Vol 5. P. p 421-425.