道德主體的尊嚴——評《神經本質主義與道德生物增強的困境》

The Dignity of the Moral Agent: A Review of "Neuroessentialism and the Dilemma of Moral Bioenhancement"

Authors

  • 顧心怡 (GU Xinyi) 北京理工大學 (Beijing Institute of Technology, CHINA)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24112/ijccpm.233398

Abstract

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English.

Professor Xiangdong Xu’s article “Neuroessentialism and the Dilemma of Moral Bioenhancement” systematically critiques the theoretical foundation and practical conception of moral bioenhancement (MBE). The article first examines the logic behind the claim that MBE can address global risks by directly regulating emotions and motivations through biotechnology, revealing its underlying premise as neuroessentialist: reducing moral capacity to a mere neural mechanism. The author refutes this position using “4E” cognition theory, arguing that morality is inherently embodied, context-embedded, and dependent on cultural practices and cannot be reduced to a technologically modifiable object. Through analysis of addiction cases and the Genetic Virtue Project, Professor Xu points out that neuroessentialism not only misconstrues the practical wisdom of virtue but also ignores the complex roles of social factors. Finally, the article elucidates the three main dilemmas facing MBE: low technological feasibility, undefined moral goals, and the erosion of individual autonomy by coercive intervention. Using the Confucian concept of “becoming a complete person” as a contrast, the author emphasises that morality is generated through self-cultivation within social relationships. The article is rigorously argued, integrates multidisciplinary perspectives, and offers a profound reflection on technological simplification.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-19

How to Cite

GU, X. (2025). 道德主體的尊嚴——評《神經本質主義與道德生物增強的困境》: The Dignity of the Moral Agent: A Review of "Neuroessentialism and the Dilemma of Moral Bioenhancement". International Journal of Chinese &Amp; Comparative Philosophy of Medicine, 23(2), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.24112/ijccpm.233398

Issue

Section

Commentary