Vaccines and the Case for the Enhancement of Human Judgment

Many have argued that human enhancement, in particular bioenhancement via genetic engineering, brain-interventions or preimplantation embryo selection, is problematic even if it can be safely implemented. Various arguments have been put forward focusing on issues such as the undermining of autonomy, uneven distribution and unfairness, and the alteration of one's identity, amongst others. Nevertheless, few, if any, of these thinkers oppose vaccines. In what follows, I argue for the permissibility of a limited set of cognitive enhancements - in particular, the enhancement of evaluative judgment and self-control - by analogy with the permissibility of vaccines. As a result, it follows that if one accepts the permissibility of vaccines one will also, other things being equal, be committed to the permissibility of these enhancements. I then consider and respond to a number of possible objections in order to defend and clarify my position.

Automated summary

There is much controversy surrounding human enhancement, but few people oppose vaccines. The author argues that limited cognitive enhancements, such as evaluative judgment and self-control, should be permissible by drawing an analogy with the permissibility of vaccines. They also respond to possible objections to defend their position.