Abstract
This commentary is an attempt to rethink the ethics of taking care in posthumanist times. It is an effort to combine ethics, posthumanism and psychological theories. I examine how the psychological notion of long-term well-being can serve as an ethical yardstick and how it can be relevant to non-humans.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For the differences and similarities between freedom and autonomy see Koopman (2013, pp. 206–209).
References
Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.
Gomel, E. (2011). Science (fiction) and posthuman ethics: Redefining the human. The European Legacy, 16(3), 339–354.
Koopman, C. (2013). Genealogy as critique: Foucault and the problems of modernity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kroes, P., & Verbeek, P.-P. (Eds.). (2014). Introduction: The moral status of technical artefacts. In The moral status of technical artefacts (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht: Springer.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on Eudamonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170.
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology. Phenomenology and the Science of Mind: Harvard University Press.
Wolfe, C. (2010). What is posthumanism?. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wellner, G. Ethics in Times of Posthumanism. Found Sci 22, 329–332 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-015-9442-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-015-9442-y