Cited by 16Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical InnovationsEthics and bioethics in healthcarePolitical Philosophy and Ethics

Enhancing equality.

Giubilini, Alberto, Minerva, Francesca·2019·The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine

Abstract

The range of opportunities people enjoy in life largely depends on social, biological, and genetic factors for which individuals are not responsible. Philosophical debates about equality of opportunities have focussed mainly on addressing social determinants of inequalities. However, the introduction of human bioenhancement should make us reconsider what our commitment to equality entails. We propose a way of improving morally relevant equality that is centred on what we consider a fair distribution of bioenhancements. In the first part, we identify three main positions in the debate on bioenhancement and equality, and we show how each of them fails to meet the demands of a serious commitment to equality. In the second part, we formulate a new proposal that we think better promotes equality of opportunities: people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds should be given access to bioenhancements while people from privileged socio-economic background should be prohibited from using them. We argue that those who are concerned about the inequality implications of bioenhancement should embrace this solution, rather than reject bioenhancement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jmp/jhz002

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If eBCIs are expensive and remain so, they would be of limited access, available only to the most privileged, giving them an additional cognitive advantage and potentially widening socioeconomic gaps.

    “In this scenario, eBCIs would be of limited access, available only to the most privileged—thereby giving those already most financially privileged an additional cognitive or intellectual advantage, potentially widening already existing socioeconomic gaps [49–51].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Giubilini, A., & Minerva, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Giubilini, Alberto
Venue
The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine
Published
2019-05-03
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
335-354
ISSN
  • 0360-5310 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-5019
OpenAlex
W4254092553
Cited by
16
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
Keywords
equal opportunities, distributive justice, social inequality, socioeconomic deprivation, moral status of enhancement
MeSH terms
Humans, Philosophy, Medical, Socioeconomic Factors, Biomedical Enhancement, Social Determinants of Health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review