The topic of whether or not Human Enhancement should be advocated for, first peaked my interest my senior year during a science class about genetics.  The term Human Enhancement is a vague term that can be difficult to grasp.  Human Enhancement can be as simple as the cup of coffee you drink in the morning to wake yourself up, or the fluorescent vest the crossing guard wears, enhancing his visibility.  On the other hand, Human Enhancement can be as complicated as modified genetics and pills that could increase our cognitive abilities.  What makes this topic interesting to me is that Human Enhancement methods have the ability to do wondrous things to the human body both physically and mentally.  I believe that advocating for Human Enhancement could allow us to further explore the wonder that is our world and enhance our capability to understand it.  This topic correlates with my view on having the ability to choose whether or not one wants to enhance their brain and/or body.  I feel that all people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to participate in these practices. I do not believe that is fair to those that do wish to enhance their state of being, simply because it is not easily accessible; whether that be financially or physically, or because it is frowned upon by most.  As it stands, I currently do not have any personal experience to with genetic or drug aspects of Human Enhancement, however every day I put on a coat, I enhance my warmness, or anytime I drink a soda, I'm drinking it to enhance my emotional state.


Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement by Nick Bostrom goes into detail about several different aspects of every day human experiences that can be affected by Human Enhancement.  Bostrom explains how the human life span can be elongated more than ever thought possible, how we as humans could have the option to put our bodies physical limits to the test, and how our cognitive abilities could be greatly enhanced, along with other possibilities.  One major value at stake when analyzing Bostrom's claims can be better stated in the form of a question, "Why would want to live for such a long period of time?"  That is one of the many questions that Bostrom address in his article in order to provide the reader with multiple views on a controversial subject.  Bostrom boast the title of professor of philosophy and director of research at The University of Oxford.  Bostrom has done extensive research on the topic of Human Enhancement throughout his time at The University of Oxford.


The Case Against Perfection by John Steward is an excellent example of a counter argument to the message that Bostrom tries to get across.  Steward presents the idea that everyone should learn to live with the idea of the unexpected.  Steward goes on to say that allowing the unexpected to take its course, results in a state of open mindedness. One of Steward's final key points of evidence is his argument is that people should value the meaning of being able to complete outstanding feats without the use of any type of enhancement, all natural skill.  The value tempered with here is that of whether not it should be up to the individual.  Steward is a political philosopher and professor at the University of Harvard.  These credentials qualify Steward to write about this subject. 



Justice, Fairness, and Enhancement by Juliana Savulescu, much like the prior one by Nick Bostrom, goes in depth on both the positives and negatives of Human Enhancement.  A key source of evidence utilized by Savulescu is her definition of sport and how it could still hold true, even with the use of drug related Human Enhancement such as Performance Enhancing Drugs or steroids.  A value directly effected by this evidence is whether or not sports should remain an honest tradition.  Savulescu wraps here ideas together by stating that only in fairness will we find justice in Human Enhancement.  Savulescu is a director of ethics at the University of Oxford giving her credibility to talk on the subject of Human Enhancement 


The topic of Human Enhancement is currently one of the more debated topics in philosophy.  With new technology developing at unimaginable speeds, so much more is possible, yet one must always consider the ethics behind these practices.  This is why I believe the research question is arguable, many forms of ethics go into developing an argument for either side and no one side is either wrong nor right.  One of the agreements throughout the articles is that the decision to genetically, physically, or mentally enhance ones abilities should be up to the individual.  As for the disagreements, touching back on the topic of elongating the human lifespan, those opposed could argue that life would eventually lose purpose if one were to live an abnormal extended period of time.  Each article provides a different point of view to the topic, allowing me to compare both sides and go into detail about what each side is advocating for.  Bostrom and Savulescu both present ideas that I strongly agree with and they both provide informative and clear evidence.  As for the research question, one could rephrase it to, how could the effects of Human Enhancement affect our future?

