Vulnerability, Embodiment and Emerging Technologies: A Still Open Issue

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some comments/requests to the author:

- To change the title of paragraph at 129 line with a more complex and structured one.

- To expand the argument with also bibliographical reference from 271 to 274.

- To avoid starting new lines at barely every single phrase.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for his/her constructive comments and suggestions. 

Comment 1: - To change the title of paragraph at 129 line with a more complex and structured one.

The title at line 129 has been changed, as wisely suggested by the reviewer. See line 129 of the revised manuscript. Now, the title is: "Something doesn't add up: uncomfortable in your own skin". This title was chosen to refer to the main content of the section, namely contemporary man's dissatisfaction with the human condition as such, which prevents him/her from feeling comfortable and living in the present. 

***

Comment 2: - To expand the argument with also bibliographical reference from 271 to 274.

I thank the reviewer for this comment. I expanded the argument, as suggested, including also bibliographical references to the works of A. Pessina and G. W.F. Hegel. See lines 304 to 309 of the revised manuscript. 

***

Comment 3: - To avoid starting new lines at barely every single phrase.

I thank the reviewer for this comment. I revised the manuscript accordingly, reducing the number of new lines, as much as possible, following the logical steps of reasoning and trying to start new lines only when it is theoretically appropriate.  

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents the transhumanist project and continues by exploring the different paradoxes that remain unsolved in this project, concluding the "absurdity of the entire transhumanist project" (298-299). It seems to me that even though the critique of transhumanism is well sustained, it does not focus on any specific aspect of this philosophical position. Moreover, this critique doesn't seem to be original in any relevant sense.

117 there is a mistaken "to"

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for his/her comments and suggestions. 

I deleted the 'to' on line 117 (line 116 in the revised manuscript).

I followed the mandatory suggestions ("Must be improved") as best I could, trying to improve the discussion of results and conclusions in particular. With regard to the optional suggestions ("Can be improved") I also tried to improve my work and I thank again the reviewer for the incentive to improve.

Regarding the suggestion to improve the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods, I believe that in the abstract and manuscript the research hypothesis and the research questions are well stated. With regard to the definition of the research design and methods, since this is a purely philosophical work, of comparison and discussion of argumentative literature, and not an empirical research or systematic review or other scientific research (in the strict sense of the word "scientific"), I thought it was not necessary to make the methodology explicit, since the 'classic' method of discussion and counter-argumentation of the theses of the philosophers cited was used.  

Reviewer 3 Report

The thesis of this paper is that a major problem with transhumanism (TH) is that it eliminates vulnerability by freeing human beings from physical, especially biological, bodies.  This is a problem because the experience of vulnerability is essential to moral judgement.  

The paper does a good job of summarizing TH but not so good of a job drawing the moral implications from TH, which constitutes a small proportion of the text at the end.  I recommend that author expand and strengthen the discussion of the moral implications part of the paper and trim-down the TH part.  Why is the experience of vulnerability essential to moral judgement?  The author does discuss virtue ethics but other perspectives could be discussed, such as Kantian ethics, care ethics, and others.  The idea of compassion seems important here (e.g., Hume's morality), since it seems plausible that a being without a body would lack compassion for an embodied being.  Also, does TH have a response?  Could they argue that the experience of vulnerability is not a big deal as long as you follow moral rules, or if its is important, that it can be simulated in virtual reality?

Author Response

I sincerely thank the reviewer for the compliments and the interesting comments and opportunities to deepen my work. 
I particularly appreciated the final objections, which allowed me to reflect further on my positions. 

I have tried to improve the manuscript, in particular with regard to the discussion of the results and conclusions, and tried to enrich the bibliographical references in order to also better contextualise the content and better support the positions presented.  

As for the recommendation to "expand and strengthen the discussion of the moral implications part of the paper and trim-down the TH part", I did so, expanding the discussion with references to the ethics of care, principlism and public health ethics (see the final section of the revised manuscript 'Sometimes a simple (?) solution is enough', in particular line 401 to 420 and line 427 to 445). 

I have also included the reference to Hume's ethics of compassion, in lines 291 to 296. 

As for the final comment: "Also, does TH have a response?  Could they argue that the experience of vulnerability is not a big deal as long as you follow moral rules, or if its is important, that it can be simulated in virtual reality?", I have reflected on this and I reply in lines 376-379: the arguments presented in this paper have shown that the assumptions of transhumanist philosophy are fallacious and that the attempt to eliminate vulnerability is doomed to failure. Given these premises, any morality that develops from them is also fallacious, because it is based on an erroneous and theoretically inconsistent anthropology. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the revised version improves the former. In terms of clarity of the argumentation. Also the bibliography has been enlarged.

Reviewer 3 Report

Good job with the revisions