Voting is open right now for the brand new Paladin League Resolutions. Here, we offer some insights to help guide your vote.

No Wrong Answers

We wrote these resolutions, so this time we don't have a preference about which ones win. They both offer tremendous depth, a solid aff/neg balance, and support value-centric and application-centric case patterns. Your decision should be made based on which topic most interests you.

"Resolved: Biomedical enhancement is good for humankind."

What it Means

There is some room for definition debate, but the most standard interpretation is something like this:

"The use of technology to alter the human body outside of direct medical applications."

The current uses of biomedical enhancement open plenty of interesting philosophical quandaries. But looking just a little bit down the road at where this technology is headed raises some of the most interesting questions facing modern ethicists.

Personal Sovereignty 

Some say that humans have a right to alter themselves however they want. If they want to use biomedical enhancements - even dangerous or ill-advised ones - they should be allowed to.

Others say that self-destructive behavior should not be tolerated; that it is immoral; that it makes you a drain on society. In a BE (Biomedical Enhancement) dystopia, people die in droves by poisoning themselves.

• Prime examples: Psychedelic drugs, anabolic steroids.

Performance Enhancement

Some say that altering yourself to improve your performance gives you an edge. Alternatively, if everyone does it, society is better off.

Others say that we're moving toward a world where you have to enhance yourself to stay relevant. In a BE dystopia, you have to get surgery to be considered for the job you want, or submit to mandatory employee drug testing to make sure you're taking all your drugs.

• Prime example: Caffeine, beta-blockers, modafinil.

Medicine vs Enhancement

Some say that deviation from a specific physical ideal is a flaw that should be corrected with technology. Why let people suffer through their deformity when we can fix them?

Others say that they don't consider themselves disabled, and resent the implication that there is something wrong with them. In a BE dystopia, communities with a rich culture linked to their physical condition (like the deaf community) are wiped out.

• Prime examples: Prosthetic limbs, cochlear implants, Lasik eye surgery.

Aesthetic Changes

Some say that changing your appearance lets you live the life you want to live, or reclaim lost youth, or free yourself from some aspect of your appearance that you don't like,

Others say that this doesn't free people from negative relationships with their bodies, it fuels them. In a BE dystopia, everyone who can afford it looks like subtle variations of the same standard of beauty - like the 2013 Miss Korea contestants who are hard to tell apart.

• Prime examples: Botox injections, cosmetic surgery.

Class Divisions

Despite its widespread benefits, biomedical enhancement invites division based on wealth. The people at the top get the very best surgeries and drugs, making them smarter, prettier, stronger, and healthier than anyone else. The people at the bottom may not be able to even participate, or participate only at great personal risk and sacrifice. The more this continues, the worse it gets.

This concept is the premise of many compelling science fiction stories, like Gattaca (1997).

• Prime example: Designer babies.

The Human Struggle

Some believe completely in the march of technology. Let us progress onward, bending the universe to our whims, making life ever easier and more efficient.

Others note that humans are not designed for lives of technological ease. As we separate further and further from our stone-age ancestors, we seem to be losing critical parts of ourselves. We might be losing our ability to grow and care and connect. Life is getting easier, but it's also losing its meaning.

The End of Homo Sapiens

At the end of the biomedical enhancement revolution is transhumanism - the emergence of creatures so fundamentally changed that they can no longer be called human. This in turn raises serious questions like: should some things be deferred to God/nature? Do we want to live in a society where people live for hundreds of years? What protections do the most vulnerable members of society deserve? What exactly does it mean to be human?

This only scratches the surface of this fascinating topic. We haven't even gotten into will nihilism, explosion of responsibility, or the argument from evolution. If this resolution wins, we'll get a chance to dive deep and thoroughly explore it all.

Come back soon for an exploration of the other value resolution.