Bionics is unnatural - no, wait, natural

In the case of scientific enhancement of healthy humans – bionics – much of the ethical argumentation for and against it seems to revolve around whether or not it is natural.

While it is is a naturalistic fallacy to draw moral conclusions from such claims, as David Hume and G.E. Moore have taught us not to do, this is often done.

I suppose there are few who would say it is not OK to rescue lives using implantable machines but how about enhancing the body and/or mind of those in no need of rescuing?

You can, clearly, say that it is not natural to implant things into a person who was born one way. On the other hand, you may say it is natural to do so, as it is a next logical step in the evolution of mankind, and Darwinian evolution is natural.

Both claims have their merits, and his shows that, it matters what kind of natural you mean. If you want to entangle your ethics in the question of naturalism, you need to choose.

There are some alternatives for the moral discussion. One might for example resort to virtue ethics and put motives into the picture. Looking at classical virtues, perhaps it is a matter of justice and fairness since some humans would be enhancing themselves while others cannot afford to. But what if we need some brave early adopters even if eventually all people could get access to some bionic booster?

One might say that bionics is just another action that is in part defined by the doers’ motives, and therefore must be examined in that, extremely dim, light. If the motives are virtuous – for example courageous– one might support it.

Not so when the motives are dubious, as is the vanity of most breast implants and nose jobs.