@article{ART001835700},
author={SangMok Lee and Jong hyun Choi},
title={Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?},
journal={Journal of the Korea Bioethics Association},
issn={1598-0324},
year={2013},
volume={14},
number={2},
pages={1-13}
TY - JOUR
AU - SangMok Lee
AU - Jong hyun Choi
TI - Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?
JO - Journal of the Korea Bioethics Association
PY - 2013
VL - 14
IS - 2
PB - The Korean Bioethics Association
SP - 1
EP - 13
SN - 1598-0324
AB - One of the arguments against cognitive enhancement is that cognitive enhancement is cheating. Cheating is primarily a matter of fairness. Therefore, the validity of ‘cheating argument’ depends on weather cognitive enhancement is fair or not. Wealthy and intellectual social class tends to access cognitive enhancement more easily, and this tendency can cause a cognitive gap in our society. The cognitive gap would trigger different academic abilities, and consequently, wide a gap between riches and poors. So Mehlmen suggests a rule allowing cognitive enhancers for everyone to reduce inequality. It seems to be fair if we benefit a same level from cognitive enhancement. However, if pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement have a same effect for everyone, a huge cognitive gap between lower cognitive group and higher cognitive group would still remain. Pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement which do not give lower cognitive members a highest benefit nor an equal opportunity does not seem to be fair. However, according to neuropyschopharmacological researches, cognitive enhancers have cognitive enhancing effects on a lower cognitive group, while not having the effects on higher cognitive group. This result means that cognitive enhancement reduce a cognitive gap among healthy people. Consequently, pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement gives the least advantaged members of cognition a best benefit and an equal opportunity to join a competition. Therefore, the rule allowing pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement is not unfair rule in accordance with Rawls’s principles of justice, and pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement could not be regarded as cheating.
KW - Pharmaceutical Cognitive enhancement;Cheating;Fairness;Difference principleofJohn Rawls;Principle of equality and opportunity
DO -
UR -
ER -
SangMok Lee and Jong hyun Choi. (2013). Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?. Journal of the Korea Bioethics Association, 14(2), 1-13.
SangMok Lee and Jong hyun Choi. 2013, "Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?", Journal of the Korea Bioethics Association, vol.14, no.2 pp.1-13.
SangMok Lee, Jong hyun Choi "Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?" Journal of the Korea Bioethics Association 14.2 pp.1-13 (2013) : 1.
SangMok Lee, Jong hyun Choi. Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?. 2013; 14(2), 1-13.
SangMok Lee and Jong hyun Choi. "Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?" Journal of the Korea Bioethics Association 14, no.2 (2013) : 1-13.
SangMok Lee; Jong hyun Choi. Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?. Journal of the Korea Bioethics Association, 14(2), 1-13.
SangMok Lee; Jong hyun Choi. Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?. Journal of the Korea Bioethics Association. 2013; 14(2) 1-13.
SangMok Lee, Jong hyun Choi. Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?. 2013; 14(2), 1-13.
SangMok Lee and Jong hyun Choi. "Is Pharmaceutical Cognitive Enhancement Cheating?" Journal of the Korea Bioethics Association 14, no.2 (2013) : 1-13.
