The theological ethics of human enhancement: Genetic engineering, robotics and nanotechnology
This academic article examines the bioethical and theological challenges raised by human enhancement technologies, including genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechnology. It uses Christian anthropological views, particularly the concept of imago Dei and human vocation, to evaluate transhumanist aspirations and the limits of human nature. The paper highlights key ethical questions surrounding human suffering, vulnerability, dignity, and the potential exacerbation of socioeconomic inequalities.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Researchers, theologians, and ethicists interested in the intersection of faith, technology, and human enhancement.
What the document contains
The article addresses the bioethical challenges of human enhancement technologies—specifically genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechnology—analyzed through the lens of Christian anthropology and public theology. It covers debates on transhumanism, human dignity, the distinction between therapy and enhancement, and the risk of widening socioeconomic inequalities.
The document does not provide concrete regulatory frameworks, binding legal rules, or specific technical guidelines for governing AI or biotechnology development.
- Human enhancement technologies such as genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechnology challenge traditional understandings of human nature and vulnerability.
- Christian anthropology, specifically the concept of imago Dei, provides a framework for evaluating the ethics of human enhancement and human dignity.
- Proponents of transhumanism advocate for overcoming human biological limitations through technology, whereas critics raise concerns about playing God and losing human identity.
- A major ethical risk of human enhancement is the potential to exacerbate existing socioeconomic divisions and disparities.
- Future theological and bioethical research must address human suffering, mortality, and the responsibilities associated with human vocation.
· Introduction · Ethical issues in human enhancement · Christian anthropology · Human dignity · Human vocation · Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
0/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
3/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
the possibility of enhancements increasing existing socioeconomic divisions and disparities.
Conclusion
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
3/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
The fact that all human beings are made in the image of God is the foundation of human dignity.
Christian anthropology
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
0/5Protection of personal data and private life
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
0/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
0/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
N/A
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
2/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
In this contribution, I wish to examine the bioethical challenges that technologies such as genetic engineering, robotics and nanotechnology raise
Introduction
screening score · 2026-10-23