Term Card: Michaelmas Term 2025
Lecture Series
The Aquinas Institute visiting fellow Professor Jason Eberl, Saint Louis University, will deliver three lectures at the Institute this term.
What is the True Death of a Human Being?
Tuesday, 14 October 5pm, Blackfriars Hall – Aula
The debate regarding the validity of the use of neurological criteria to determine death – so-called “brain death” – has been central to the field of bioethics since its inception. At the root of this debate are several philosophical claims regarding the definition of human personhood and criterion of personal identity, concepts such as “organism as a whole” and “irreversibility,” and whether death should be understood as a strictly biological or a partially socially constructed fact. The brain death debate has been re-energized by recent cases involving apparent post-brain death survival, calls to revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act, and the development of a novel means of organ procurement known as normothermic regional perfusion following circulatory determination of death. This presentation revisits the arguments for and against brain death, defending not only the conceptual validity of brain death, but also its marking the true death of a human being.
Dr Michael Wee will respond.
To register, follow the link
Thomism and Transhumanism: Can Biotechnology enhance Human Flourishing?
Tuesday, 25 November 5pm, Blackfriars Hall – Aula
In this presentation, I critique transhumanism, which denies any objective account of human nature and flourishing in favour of “morphological freedom” to reshape ourselves in any way one chooses so long as it does not harm others. I also critique those who reject any non-therapeutic interventions that could alter allegedly definitive qualities of human nature. I then ethically assess proposed forms of human enhancement from the anthropological and moral perspective developed by Aquinas and various subsequent Thomists. I contend that certain “moderate” forms of human enhancement may be conducive to human flourishing, as Thomistically defined, while others would be deleterious to a human being’s self-identity and flourishing as a living, sentient, social, and rational animal. Even if such moderate forms of enhancement are in principle permissible, significant practical concerns may ultimately undermine their ethical viability.
To register, follow the link
Can we BioTechnologically Construct a Morally Better Human?
Wednesday, 3 December 5pm, Blackfriars Hall – Aula
In this presentation, I comparatively analyze traditional indirect means of moral enhancement, such as moral education within families and wider societies, with direct biotechnological means that affect a moral agent’s cognitive and emotive capacities. I raise several concerns with the latter and call for enhancing traditional methods of moral education. Nevertheless, certain methods of bioenhancement could facilitate, and not undermine, one’s agency, autonomy, and authenticity by aligning their first- and second-order desires. Yet, even if there are principled reasons to allow for, or even encourage, such forms of moral bioenhancement, there are various practical concerns that may be insurmountable when such means are made available on the open market.
To register, follow the link