Book section
Reasons, reflection, and repugnance
- Abstract:
- In the debate about the pros and cons of human enhancement, proponents of enhancement (so-called ‘liberals’) often accuse their opponents (so-called ‘conservatives’) of substituting emotion for reason. In this they are relying on an age-old dichotomy between reason and emotion that has a long popular and philosophical history. Plato’s picture of reason as the charioteer controlling the turbulent horses of the passions has had a significant influence (though its popular version ignores Plato’s reservations.) Cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists have recently joined the fray and sought to examine the role of reason on the one hand and emotion on the other in moral outlooks and decisions. This chapter examines the contrast between reason and emotion and, while noting many ambiguities in both concepts, will argue that much of the separation of reason and emotion that underpins the debate is misguided.
- Publication status:
- Published
- Peer review status:
- Peer reviewed
Actions
Access Document
- Files:
-
-
(Preview, Accepted manuscript, pdf, 135.5KB, Terms of use)
-
- Publisher copy:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198754855.003.0002
Authors
- Publisher:
- Oxford Scholarship Online
- Host title:
- Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate
- Publication date:
- 2016-01-01
- DOI:
- ISBN:
- 9780198754855
- Keywords:
- Pubs id:
-
pubs:736865
- UUID:
-
uuid:a78c7dbc-64c3-4b72-bc75-e7beb966d3c4
- Local pid:
-
pubs:736865
- Source identifiers:
-
736865
- Deposit date:
-
2017-10-17
- ARK identifier:
Terms of use
- Copyright date:
- 2016
- Notes:
- This is the accepted manuscript version of the paper. The final version can be found from Oxford Scholarship Online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198754855.003.0002
If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record