In a superb, artful post, Anders Sandberg deftly picks apart arguments that cog-enhancing drugs would be unfair:
The unfairness issue might be fairly weak: cognition enhancers do not appear to be very expensive and could be made less expensive and more widely available by government subsidies if found useful. But there would likely be large differences in the willingness to take the drugs, given their individual effects and side-effects, as well as personal beliefs about their suitability. Am I subjected to unfairness if I do not wish to use a helpful tool in a competitive situation? It does not seem warranted, since I do have a choice. A religious person might not want to study on holy days, yet we do not think they are being subjected to unfair competition from their atheist fellows who can study on all days. Arguing that the atheists should be penalized (or forced to take holidays) to even things out does not seem reasonable.
It’s a short but potent piece. Good argumentation gives me goosebumps.
Bioethics is controversial.
No one endorses the ideas or concepts explored here, not even me.
You will develop a strong opinion about something you find here. I want to hear it. Philosophy is a conversation.
popbioethics [at] gmail [dot] com
Long Form ArticlesWhy Mass Effect is the most Important Science Fiction Universe of our Generation