English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In an attempt to widen the perspective on the issue of moral enhancement, this paper raises the question of what kind of evil could we eliminate by morally enhancing ourselves, i.e. what kind of evil would we still have to live with. Due to the complexity and diversity of philosophical analysis of evil, this study will be narrowed in scope by conforming to an implicit understanding of evil by some of the most prominent advocates of biomedical (moral) enhancement. We will compare two perspectives on evil: evil as a component of human nature – radical evil (Immanuel Kant), and “depersonalized” evil – the banality of evil (Hannah Arendt), together with an implicit consideration of evil by Th omas Douglas, Julian Savulescu, Ingmar Persson, and John Harris. Furthermore, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s “Th eodicy” will be used in the analysis of the necessity of the reduction of evil, in order to emphasise that human beings have limited knowledge, which is why we should take into consideration the principle of caution and the fragility of balance between good and evil. In the conclusion, we off er an answer to the question “What is a better world?” by taking into consideration often neglected tradition of moral philosophy in the works of Immanuel Kant and Hannah Arendt.

Moralno poboljšanje i redukcija zla: Je li bolji svijet moguć?