Thomas Douglas
Has grant
Research Interests
Explore related searches
Contact this professor
Get a free first email built on one of their papers, ready for you to edit and send yourself.
Recent Grants
Grant: Close
Protecting Minds: The Right to Mental Integrity and The Ethics of Arational Influence
Open Date: 2020-01-01
Close Date: 2024-12-31
Grant: Close
Convergent Ethics and the Ethics of Controversy (Collaborator)
Open Date: 2018-01-01
Close Date: 2021-01-01
Grant: Close
Changing One's Mind: Neurointerventions, Autonomy, and the Law on Consent (Mentor)
Open Date: 2017-01-01
Close Date: 2020-01-01
Grant: Close
Oxford Martin Programme on Collective Responsibility for Infectious Disease
Open Date: 2015-01-01
Close Date: 2019-01-01
Grant: Close
Do No Harm: A Neural and Ethical Analysis of Actions and Omissions in Moral Decision-Making (Supervisor)
Open Date: 2014-01-01
Close Date: 2017-01-01
Articles (15)
Year:
2024
Year:
2024
Year:
2024
Year:
2024
Year:
2024
Year:
2024
Year:
2023
Psychological literature indicates that actions performed with the assistance of cognition‐enhancing biomedical technologies are often deemed to be less praiseworthy than similar actions performed without such assistance. This study examines (i) whether this result extends to the bioenhancement of moral capacities, and (ii) if so, what explains the effect of moral bioenhancement on perceived praiseworthiness. The findings indicate that actions facilitated by morally bioenhanced individuals are considered less deserving of praise than similar actions facilitated by ‘traditional’ moral enhancement—for example, moral self‐education. This diminished praise does not seem to be driven by an aversion to (moral) bioenhancement per se. Instead, it appears to be primarily attributable to a perceived lack of effort exerted by bioenhanced individuals in the course of their moral enhancement. Our findings advance the philosophical discourse on the foundations of praise in the context of moral bioenhancement by elucidating the empirical basis underlying some assumptions commonly employed to argue for or against the permissibility of moral bioenhancement.
Year:
2023
Year:
2022
Year:
2022
Year:
2022
Year:
2022
Year:
2022
Year:
2021
Year:
2020
Collaborators (3)
Nadira S. Faber
-
Vera Tesink
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Gerben Meynen
Utrecht University
Make your next move.
Prepare your application
Review drafts before you send them.