Against Unattainable ModelsPerfection, Technology and Society

  1. Luca Valera 1
  1. 1 Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
    info

    Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile

    Santiago de Chile, Chile

    ROR https://ror.org/04teye511

Revista:
Sociología y tecnociencia: Revista digital de sociología del sistema tecnocientífico

ISSN: 1989-8487

Any de publicació: 2018

Volum: 8

Número: 1

Pàgines: 1-16

Tipus: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Altres publicacions en: Sociología y tecnociencia: Revista digital de sociología del sistema tecnocientífico

Resum

The present article deals with the subject of the contemporary concern towards recent technological developments, starting with the current discussion about the topic of perfection. Precisely, one of the hypotheses regarding the causes of this concern is the model of perfection that the society of the technological civilization is promoting: an unattaina ble model. Once we have clarified the fact that the idea of perfection, which inspires contemporaneity, is an “intramundane metaphysical perfection” that seeks to eliminate certain undesired corporeal aspects, we can argue that the current social and cultural models cannot be attained for four main reasons: they are extrinsic, globalized, unreal, and dependent on the logic of technology. In this context, and based on these models, the main ethical objective of human beings becomes impossible: to be oneself

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Bostrom, N. (2005). A History of Transhumanist Thought. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 14 (1), 1-25.
  • Cañon Loyes, C. (2015). Algunas cuestiones sobre el concepto de mejora. Pensamiento, 71 (269), 1347-1360.
  • Coeckelbergh, M. (2013). Human Being @ Risk: Enhancement, Technology, and the Evaluation of Vulnerability Transformations. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Descartes, R. (2006). Meditation, Objections, and Replies. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
  • Fabris, A. (2012). Etica delle nuove tecnologie. Brescia: La Scuola.
  • Franzini Tibaldeo, R. (2015). The Heuristics of Fear: Can the Ambivalence of Fear Teach Us Anything in the Technological Age? Ethics in Progress, 6 (1), 225-238.
  • Habermas, J. (2003). The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Hauskeller, M. (2012). My Brain, My Mind, and I: Some Philosophical Problems of Mind-Uploading. International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 4 (1), 187200.
  • Hottois, G. (1987). Technoscience: Nihilistic Power versus a New Ethical Consciousness. In P. T. Durbin (Ed.), Philosophy and Technology Vol. 3. Technology and Responsibility (p. 69-84). Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Kass, L. (2003). Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Perfection. The New Atlantis. A Journal of Technology & Society, 1, 9-28.
  • Jonas, H. (1984). The Imperative of Responsibility. In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Marcos, A. (2010). TACT Glossary: Technology. La clinica terapeutica, 161 (6), 565-567.
  • Marcos, A. (2014). Principio de precaución: un enfoque (neo)aristotélico. In P. Gondek (Ed.), Man, Culture, Security (p. 43-58). Lublin: Fundacja Skola Filozofii Chrzescijanskiej.
  • Marvin, C. When Old Technologies Were New. Thinking About Electric Communication in the Late Nineteenth Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Nietzsche, F. (2005). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. A Book for Everyone and Nobody. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Onetti Muda, A. & Borghi, L. (2016). L’evoluzione delle malattie e della medicina: quando la tecnologia s’incontra con il fattore umano. In M. C. Carozza, E. Guglielmelli & R. Pietrabissa (Eds.), La bioingegneria per il benessere e l’invecchiamento attivo (p. 17-35). Bologna: Pàtron Editore.
  • Passmore, J. (2000). The Perfectibility of Man. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
  • Paton, H. J. (2005). Commentary and Analysis of the Argument. In I. Kant, The Moral Law. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (p. 1-51). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Pessina, A. (2000). Bioetica. L’uomo sperimentale. Milano: Bruno Mondadori.
  • Petrosino. S., & Valera, L. (2014). Idolatria e soggettività. Intervista a Silvano Petrosino a cura di Luca Valera. Per la filosofia. Filosofia e insegnamento, 90 (1), 11-18.
  • Rabinowicz, W. (1979). Universalizability: A Study in Morals and Metaphysics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel
  • Roache, R., & Clarke, S. (2009). Bioconservativism, Bioliberalism and the Wisdom of Reflecting on Repugnance. Monash Bioethics Review, 28 (1), 4.1-4.21.
  • Roduit, J. A. R., Baumann H., & Heilinger, J.-C. (2013). Human Enhancement and Perfection. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39 (10), 647-650.
  • Russo, M. T. (2004). Corpo, salute, cura. Linee di antropologia biomedica. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
  • Sandel, M. J. (2007). The Case against Perfection. Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
  • Shusterman, R. (2008). Body Consciousness. A Philosophy of Mindfulness and Somaesthetics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sutton, A. (2015). Transhumanism: A New Kind of Promethean Hubris. The New Bioethics: A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body, 21 (2), 117-127.
  • Uchang, K. (2016). Globality and Universality: Toward a New Horizon Beyond East and West: Observations on Moral Pragmatics, Its Rhetoric and Domain. Korean Studies, 40, 1-42.
  • Valera, L. (2014). Post-Humanism: Still or Beyond Humanism. Cuadernos de Bioetica, 25 (3), 481-491.
  • Valera, L. (2014a). Introduzione al numero monografico “filosofia e idoli”. Per la filosofia. Filosofia e insegnamento, 90 (1), 9-10.
  • Valera, L. & Marcos, A. (2014). Desarrollo humano sostenible: una visión aristotélica. Isegoría. Revista de filosofía moral y política, 51, 671-690.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet