Today it is commonplace for individuals to spend thousands of dollars on physical and medical enhancements that improve bodily appearance and function. Plastic surgery, diet pills, liposuction, steroids, and many other treatments and applications are widely used and accepted in our society. Yet in his essay “Enhancements and the Ethical Significance of Vulnerability,” McKenny highlights philosophical arguments that contradict our modern quest to eliminate bodily vulnerability.
Vulnerability possessed an ethical significance for ancients, like the Stoics and Aristotle, who desired to pursue virtue rather than bodily perfection. Since the body inevitably failed humans at the hands of “fortune” (death, disease, etc.), the Stoics focused instead on “self-examination” and “self-mastery” as the path to virtue and fulfillment (227-228). While they acknowledged a need for bodily health, the Stoics maintained that bodily practices could not contribute to ultimate happiness. Nothing that was susceptible to the hands of fortune should have been pursued, and enhancements were merely an attempt to gain control of our bodies in a way that only virtue should (226).
Aristotle also taught that the pursuit of virtue (happiness) would lead to fulfillment, but he did not discount the merits of everything that was susceptible to fortune as the Stoics did. For example, Aristotle believed that friendship was essential to happiness yet it was also subject to the whims of fortune (229). Furthermore, bodily health was necessary to some degree to maintain a virtuous life, and enhancements were acceptable for the severely deprived.
Finally, McKenny addresses Levinas’ philosophical view of vulnerability. His ethical conclusion relies on denying the “persistence of being” as the traditional basis of ethics in favor of emphasizing the vulnerable body as the basis for our subjectivity (234). Levinas also examines the influence that identifying with our vulnerability has on the examination of our duty to the “other.”
Through the presentation of these arguments regarding the significance of vulnerability, McKenny highlights the fact that modern society has no guidelines for the ethical use of enhancements to diminish this vulnerability (223). Today, we do not see the benefits of subjecting ourselves to fortune and embracing our vulnerability. We are only concerned with the limits that our bodies place on us and how we can overcome them. But if we continue to overcome these limitations with physical and medical enhancements, our human fulfillment will become a “product rather than a process” (227). The ancient process of enhancement taught virtues like moderation since one had to struggle against the drives of our body: hunger, thirst, sleep, etc. Yet with our modern enhancements, we do not need to fight against our bodies to achieve its perfection. If the process of enhancements continues to develop unexamined, perhaps one day we will no longer know sacrifice – a human experience that builds character and strength. What kind of people will we become when we no longer know sacrifice or moderation? What moral consequences will this continued denial of our inherent vulnerability have?
1 comment:
I agree. McKenny says, “Our enhancements are designed precisely to eliminate this need to struggle against a recalcitrant body” (226). But what does it say when you cheat to get what you want? We as a society are told cheating is wrong, but today we are making things easier to achieve without putting in the effort to reach that achievement. For example, the use of steroids in sports enables players to become better athletes and makes other athletes, who are fortunate, more vulnerable. What happened to work ethic – a belief in moral value of hard work? Is this not wrong?
Post a Comment