Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30157295/ ^ | Aug 29 2018 | Parker Crutchfield

[uzumaki_naruto]

Abstract

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

[uzumaki_naruto]

Conspiracy theorists say the COVID jabs alter genes. It seems like the experts talk about bioenhancing us without our knowledge for a long time.

The paper was published in 2018.

[BenLurkin]

What the heck is “moral bioenhancement”?

Are they saying that bioenhancement can improve a person’s morals?

[Deaf Smith]

???

The 154 page Label for the J & J "vaccine" says it is a gene therapy.

When all these "vaccines" came out, they said they were a Experimental Gene Therapy.

Just what do they think Gene Therapy means?

[goodnesswins]

Weird, but disturbing

[uzumaki_naruto]

@ BenLurkin

Maybe you die faster with the jab because your body ages faster. You die, you are doing the Earth a favor. Rumor has it that the COVID babies mature very fast. They might be sterile when they came of reproductive age.

[BenLurkin]

Whoever wrote that has a very warped — completely upside down— idea of what is “ethical.”

[DannyTN]

There is so much wrong with this.

• They start with the assumption that compulsory bioenhancement is for the public good. But who determines that? Did some guy in an authoritative position with investments in bioenhancement firms make the decision? In a free society, the public should make an informed decision what is in the public good.
• Why is it compulsory at all? It can be in the public good and not be compulsory. If it's so great won't the vast majority of the public embrace it? But if it is new technology, if there are high incidences of adverse events, shouldn't it be publicly vetted. Making something compulsory should have to pass an extremely high bar.
• Doing anything "covertly" has risks. What if something goes wrong. The individual who was enhanced doesn't know something was done to them and therefore can't relate the two. They can't make an informed decision about their own health because information was covertly hidden from them.
• To be covert, you have to keep it secret. That means not only individuals won't know something was done to them, but likely their doctors aren't going to know. Because if you tell all the doctors then some of them are going to go public. Now you've violated your doctor's freedom of speech. Or you have kept both doctor and patient in the dark about what was done to the patient. Unacceptable.
• Science has been wrong about a great many things. Consider that science was removing parts they considered to be "vestigial" only to find out that those parts did serve important functions and they had caused needless pain and suffering. Just take a look at the food pyramid, where the public was told to eat lots and lots of carbs resulting in an epidemic of obesity and metabolic disorders. Given science's record compulsory should be an absolute last resort or never.
• Just how cavalier are we going to be about tossing aside an individual's rights over his own body? Sure we're talking today in the middle of a highly contagious pandemic. But where do you draw the line. If things are done covertly, might they have decided that public administration of thalidomide was in the public interest? Or something else that proves equally deadly? Maybe statin drugs that deplete one's Co-Q10? Statins are very popular with doctors, but how many doctors even know to prescribe Co-Q10 with them? Some people are allergic to vitamin C. Are the "covert administrators" going to be held liable for knowing a patients complete medical history if they get something wrong? You've got drug interactions. You could have overdoses occurring because the patient is not informed.

[TianaHighrider]

😳bookmark

[goodnesswins]

Luciferian

[A strike]

These are definitely Mengele’s spawn and should be treated as such.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

... a matter of public health...

For over 100 years we have allowed more and more things to be imposed on us in the name of "public health".

And "public health" keeps expanding until it covers everything.

It needs to stop.

Because "public health" now means whatever they want it to mean.

And when something means anything it means nothing.

[uzumaki_naruto]

*** There is so much wrong with this.

They start with the assumption that compulsory bioenhancement is for the public good. But who determines that? ***

That would be someone like Lord Fauci who tells us to do for our own good. Remember don’t do your own research. That’s dangerous!

[metmom]

And this from a government funded and run organization.

This is what they have planned for us.

[metmom]

The government, of all entities, deciding what is moral or not.

If that isn’t the height of irony.

[uzumaki_naruto]

@metmom

This is the author’s URL

https://med.wmich.edu/node/1371

Parker Crutchfield, PhD

Associate Professor, Department of Medical Ethics, Humanities, and Law

Biosketch

Parker Crutchfield, PhD, received his bachelors degree in philosophy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He completed his PhD in philosophy at Arizona State University, working in applied ethics, epistemology, and the philosophy of science. Following graduate school, he was assistant professor of ethics and the inaugural director of research at the Missouri School of Dentistry and Oral Health at A.T. Still University, a school which he helped found. As Associate Professor in the Department of Medical Ethics, Humanities, and Law at WMed, Dr. Crutchfield conducts clinical ethics consultations, teaches medical students and residents, and conducts research in medical ethics.

Research

Moral Psychology
Cognitive Science

[BenLurkin]

“PhD in applied ethics, epistemology, and the philosophy of science.”

http://www.lerctr.org/~transit/healy/bull.wav

[The Duke]

WHEN_DID_YOU_GET_THE_BOOB_JOB_PING

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

Among this academic's publications:

Crutchfield P. Engendering moral post-persons: A novel self-help strategy Bioethics. 2020;34:679-686.

https://med.wmich.edu/node/1371

"Post-person."

"I address in this paper the idea that moral enhancement could give rise to moral transhumans, or moral post-persons. Contrary to recent arguments that we shouldn't engender moral post-persons, I argue that we should."

Covertly too. Because "greater good."

"For example, we appear to be incapable of responding to climate change in ways that are likely to prevent the consequent suffering."

And yet one finds another title. :Crutchfield P. Moral enhancement can kill Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (United Kingdom). 2018;43:568-584."

Talking out of both sides of his mouth work seems to have gotten him some press coverage. Maybe be in time he will become a transhuman. Or try to make us like him. Wouldn't Uncle Adolf be proud?

[metmom]

The only reason you inflict something one someone covertlynis for nefarious reasons.

You are correct. If it’s truly for people’s good, they will see it and know it. They are not as stupid as TPTB think. And so it’s up to the people themselves to decide what’s best for themselves and if they agree, they will embrace it and there will be no need to covertly inflict it on them against their will.

[saturn]

How long before “ in the interest of public health we need to get rid of guns, to save our children. “