![]() ![]() ![]() With that thought, we are ready to consider re-centring the source of all value with God. So, the posthumanist age can be seen as a time of softening up our moral intuitions to the point of recognising a very posthumanist ethics, indeed, just so long as it can deliver on a recognisably central criterion of normativity, such as unavoidability. Indeed, I would argue that there is no principled difference between any two ethical systems except to the extent that one might be grounded in a metaethics that explains the unavoidability of ethical/moral reasons, as set out in this prior post of mine. The population of Western democracies may exhibit a bias towards the former at present, but there is no way to guarantee that this will persist into the future, now that the notion of humanity’s manifest destiny has been obliterated. These possibilities are raised, not as a slippery slope argument as to where such movements or theories are actually heading, but to make the point that there is no principled way to prioritise an egalitarian posthumanism over a chauvinist posthumanism. The critical posthumanist valorisation of the non-human environment could lead to a “final solution” for the preservation of a biosphere plagued by the human predilection for capitalism domination. The transhumanist fetish for enhancement could morph into a culture justifying “anti-fleshy” pogroms. It really is a short step from a posthumanist re-centring towards a more inclusive egalitarian ethics, to an alternative posthumanist re-centring towards an exclusive chauvinism. It shows how wrong we might be in our moral thinking right now, either absolutely or relative to a future shift in social norms. In shifting the centre of value, however, it highlights that radical shifts in moral and ethical thinking can occur in a few generations. Still, most current posthumanist theory retains an egalitarian ethics, simply extending the class of persons or entities that can owe and be owed moral duties, or realise a form of the Good. This entails a substantial downgrading of the value of human life, despite not withdrawing all value from humanity. Braidotti ( The Posthuman, 2013) discusses death as something not to be feared or avoided at all costs because the forces of zoe (self-organising matter or life) within us continue after the dissolution of the self. The radical nature of a posthumanist re-centring of value should not be underestimated. This post concerns the re-centring of value, and my next will concern re-centring of potential for progress. Theistic or theocentric posthumanism re-centres on God. Critical posthumanism re-centres on a multiplicity of centres, including Braidotti’s strategy of re-centring on living matter in any form. Transhumanism re-centres on an extended and enhanced concept of humanity. ![]() Posthumanism is the re-centring of value and potential elsewhere. Anti-humanism is the decentring of humanity as the universal centre of value and potential for progress. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |