The turn for ultimate harm: A reply to Fenton

23Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Elizabeth Fenton has criticised an earlier article by the authors in which the claim was made that, by providing humankind with means of causing its destruction, the advance of science and technology has put it in a perilous condition that might take the development of genetic or biomedical techniques of moral enhancement to get out of. The development of these techniques would, however, require further scientific advances, thus forcing humanity deeper into the danger zone created by modern science. Fenton argues that the benefits of scientific advances are undervalued. The authors believe that the argument rather relies upon attaching a special weight to even very slight risks of major catastrophes, and attempt to vindicate this weighting.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2011). The turn for ultimate harm: A reply to Fenton. Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(7), 441–444. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.036962

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free