Literature in Bioethics and Bioethics in Literature

λογος
Li e a u e in Bioe hics
and Bioe hics
in Li e a u e
Jana Tomašo iˇ
co á
Bogumiła Suwa a (eds.)
Li e a u e in Bioe hics
and Bioe hics in Li e a u e
Jana Tomaˇ
so iˇ
co ´
a, Bogumiła Suwa a (eds.)
Logos Ve lag Be lin
λογος
Bibliog aphic in o ma ion published by he Deu sche Na ionalbiblio hek
The Deu sche Na ionalbiblio hek lis s his publica ion in he Deu sche
Na ionalbibliog a ie; de ailed bibliog aphic da a a e a ailable
on he In e ne a h p://dnb.d-nb.de .
This publica ion has been pee e iewed.
Re iewe s:
Assoc. P o . Ja osla a Vyd o ´
a, PhD.
D . Ra ał Maje ek, PhD.
Co e design and layou :
Hannah K opla
This wo k was suppo ed by VEGA p ojec No. 2/0163/22, he Facul y o A s o
he Uni e si y o Ss. Cy il and Me hodius in T na a, and he Ins i u e o Wo ld
Li e a u e o he Slo ak Academy o Sciences in B a isla a.
This wo k is licensed unde he C ea i e Commons license CC BY-NC-ND
(h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). C ea i e Commons license
e ms o e-use do no apply o any con en (such as g aphs, igu es, pho os,
exce p s, e c.) no o iginal o he Open Access publica ion and u he pe mission
may be equi ed om he igh s holde . The obliga ion o esea ch and clea
pe mission lies solely wi h he pa y e-using he ma e ial.
Logos Ve lag Be lin GmbH 2025
ISBN 978-3-8325-6010-2
Logos Ve lag Be lin GmbH
Geo g-Kno -S . 4, Geb. 10,
D-12681 Be lin
Tel.: +49 (0)30 / 42 85 10 90
Fax: +49 (0)30 / 42 85 10 92
h p://www.logos- e lag.com
Con en s
In oduc ion …………………………………………………………………… 1
The E hics o Ca e and Consequence: A Bioe hical Reading o Jodi Picoul ’s
My Sis e ’s Keepe
I an Lacko …………………………………………………………………….... 5
Machines Like People in Heal hca e: F om Science Fic ion o Reali y
Tomáš Ká oly …………………………………………………………………. 19
Beyond Gene ic Enhancemen in Kazuo Ishigu o’s Kla a and he Sun
Adam Šk o an ………………………………………………………………… 43
The Di e si y o Li e and I s Fini ude in Selec ed Wo ks
Bogumiła Suwa a ……………………………………………………………... 69
Two Cases o Suicide in Roman Li e a u e and he Issue o Assis ed Dea h
in Bioe hics
Pe e F aňo ……………………………………………………………………. 91
Was Hesiod’s Pando a a Pos human?
Ma úš Po ubjak ………………………………………………………………. 113
Dys opia as a Mo al Expe imen : The Educa ional Po en ial o Li e a u e
Denisa Mišino á ……………………………………………………………... 133
Na a i e Abili ies and Mo al Compe encies: Inspi a ion om he Wo ks o
Ma ha C. Nussbaum
Jana Tomašo ičo á …………………………………………………………... 153
Lis o Con ibu o s ………………………………………………………... 167

1
In oduc ion
O e he pas ew decades, he ela ionship be ween li e a u e and bioe hics has
in ensi ied. Ini ially, i was mos ly e lec ed om he pe spec i e o he adi ional
biomedical, doc o -pa ien ela ionship. Bu oday, bioe hics is an in e disciplina y
ield ha on he one hand wo ks closely wi h he na u al sciences and biomedi-
cine, while in e ac ing wi h he cul u al sciences, a s, and humani ies on he o he .
As opposed o he adi ional opics o medical e hics, mode n bio echnologies
ha e in oduced b and new hemes o li e a u e, such as gene edi ing, p eimplan-
a ion gene ic diagnosis, neu o echnological in e en ions in he b ain, o gan
ansplan s, enhancemen o human capabili ies, o eu hanasia. All o hese a e
compelling mo i s o li e a y and cinema ic adap a ions and can become exam-
ples o new sha ed discou ses as well as he eme gence o new esea ch aspec s,
o example, na a i e bioe hics.
Along wi h he accele a ed de elopmen and applica ion o new bio ech-
nologies, we a e con on ed wi h new li e si ua ions and mo al dilemmas, o he
solu ion o which we o en lack adequa e in e p e a ional models. In many cases,
he p inciples o adi ional no ma i e e hics a e insu icien o add ess new,
eme ging p oblems, which p omp s he explo a ion o o he sui able me hodolog-
ical app oaches. The au ho s o his book ocus on explo ing he ela ionships be-
ween li e a u e and bioe hics and e eal hei ex ao dina y po en ial o os e
c i ical hinking, mo al ac ion, and he o ma ion o isions o he de elopmen
o socie y. They no only examine how li e a u e e lec s and add esses bioe hical
dilemmas, bu also analyse how he li e a y ea men o hese dilemmas and he
an icipa ion o hei possible solu ions can help shape, e ine, and deepen he bi-
oe hical discou se. The indi idual s udies in his olume con i m ha he de el-
opmen o na a i e skills is becoming an impo an pa o a b oade bioe hical
e lec ion which can s eng hen he mo al compe encies needed o sol e complex
mo al issues.
The book consis s o eigh chap e s. The au ho o he i s chap e , I an
Lacko, uses he Ame ican w i e Jodi Picoul ’s no el My Sis e ’s Keepe (2004)
o add ess issues ela ed o he applica ion o p eimplan a ion gene ic diagnosis
when concei ing a child who, owing o he gene ic i becomes a sui able dono
o he g a ely ill sibling. Lacko in e p e s his s ong li e a y na a i e om he
poin o iew o h ee bioe hical app oaches – u ili a ian e hics, i ue e hics, and
ca e e hics. He discusses he impo ance o pe sonal au onomy and he agile
na u e o main aining i , he challenge o aking mo al esponsibili y o one’s
2
ac ions, and he di icul y in e hical decision-making by pa en s and doc o s in
complex mo al si ua ions. The au ho e lec s on he nume ous p omises o new
echnology as well as he conside able isks associa ed wi h i s p ac ical applica-
ion.
In he second chap e , Tomáš Ká oly ocuses on he use o social obo s in
heal hca e. He i s aces he cu en de elopmen o obo s based on ad ances in
a i icial in elligence and obo ics, no ing ha , in addi ion o su gical p ocedu es,
echnology is al eady being used in heal hca e o diagnosis, p edic ion, and p e-
en ion. Ká oly pays special a en ion o social obo s ha could se e as com-
panions o lonely people, pa ien s wi h demen ia, babysi e s o child en, o e en
psycho he apis s. This aises a numbe o bioe hical ques ions, o which he au ho
seeks answe s by means o philosophical, e hical, and li e a y analyses. In doing
so, he explo es he connec ions be ween sci- i s o ies and cu en echnological
de elopmen in he eal wo ld.
Adam Šk o an, he au ho o he hi d chap e , shi s he a en ion om he
equen ly discussed heme o he ela ionships be ween humans and machines in
Kazuo Ishigu o’s Kla a and he Sun (2021) o he ques ion o gene ic enhance-
men – a opic ha is also s ongly p esen in he no el. The enhancemen p oce-
du e, e e ed o as li ing in he no el, allows he au ho o analyse po en ial con-
sequences o gene ic enhancemen and i s e ec on indi iduals and socie y as a
whole. The analysis con on s us wi h possible changes no only on he le el o
indi idual people, bu also ega ding such issues as social coexis ence and social
exclusion.
Two chap e s o he book a e dedica ed o he opic o eu hanasia. In he
ou h chap e , Bogumiła Suwa a uses wo a is ic wo ks o e lec on eu hanasia.
She analyses he aspec o dea h denial in Edson Oda’s mo ie Nine Days (2020)
and p esen s he di icul decision-making whe he o y o ge elie om exc u-
cia ing pain h ough eu hanasia o pallia i e ca e on he backd op o he no el
How I Didn’ Kill My Fa he and How Much I Reg e I (2021) by he Polish w i e
Ma eusz Pakuła. The au ho conduc s he analysis om wo pe spec i es, no ing
how he opic is app oached in bioe hical discussions and, a he same ime, how
hese discussions in luence he in e p e a ion o ilm o li e a y wo ks.
In he i h chap e , Pe e F aňo o e s a compa a i e analysis o selec ed
bioe hical issues ela ed o he cu en discussion on eu hanasia and compa es
hese wi h wo desc ip ions o suicide in Roman li e a u e. His ancien sou ces
include De Vi is Illus ibus by he Roman biog aphe Co nelius Nepos and he
le e collec ion Epis ulae Mo ales ad Lucilium by Seneca. F aňo’s analysis
3
ocuses p ima ily on he examina ion o h ee issues – he ype o illness in ques-
ion, a clea o mula ion o he will o die, and he assis ance o a doc o and/o
philosophe . Based on hese, he iden i ies pa allels and di e ences be ween an-
cien and con empo a y app oaches o a olun a y e mina ion o li e b ough
abou by pe sis en and in ole able pain.
Nume ous con empo a y au ho s ha e sough inspi a ion in ancien s o ies
and my hs p ese ed in he oldes wo ks o ou cul u e in o de o unde s and
ecen phenomena. When discussing human enhancemen oday, au ho s p esen
bo h s onge and weake a gumen s, p ima ily seeking o suppo he idea o e-
in o cing cogni i e, emo ional, o physical abili ies. Ma úš Po ubjak, he au ho
o he six h chap e , uses he s o y abou he c ea ion o he i s woman – Pando a
– o ex end he bioe hical discussion by an inno a i e aspec . He no only poin s
ou he ace s o enhancemen implici in he my h o Pando a, bu also a gues ha
Pando a was delibe a ely c ea ed as a highly complex social being. In he au ho ’s
iew, he c ea ion b ough abou undamen al social imp o emen o humani y,
which can se e as a powe ul inspi a ion o guiding ou isions o human en-
hancemen .
In he se en h chap e , Denisa Mišino á ocuses on Young Adul dys opian
li e a u e, which she pe cei es as sui able expe imen al ma e ial o examine a i-
ous mo al dilemmas ela ed o gene ic modi ica ion, emo ional manipula ion, o
echnological con ol. Young Adul dys opias a e becoming inc easingly popula
among young eade s and, i app op ia ely inco po a ed in he educa ional p o-
cess, could se e as a use ul ool o de elop c i ical hinking and he shaping o a
mo al cha ac e and alue sys ems in young people. The au ho es s he opinions
on he backd op o he deba e on whe he mo ali y is inhe en o acqui ed.
In he las chap e , Jana Tomašo ičo á examines he ela ionship be ween
ein o cing na a i e abili ies and inc easing mo al compe ence. The mo al com-
pe ence o ele an ac o s in mo al ac ion is, alongside e hical expe ise, an im-
po an pa o decision-making in majo mo al cases. The au ho bases he e lec-
ions on he wo ks o he mo al philosophe Ma ha C. Nussbaum, acco ding o
whom a de ailed in e p e a ion o he mo al dilemmas depic ed in li e a y ex s
and he ways o esol ing hem s imula es mo al imagina ion, which is a p epa a-
ion o mo al ac ion. These conside a ions suppo he na a i e app oach in bio-
e hics. I s signi icance does no lie in eplacing a ional e hical a gumen a ion, bu
in complemen ing i , because i can shape and s eng hen he mo al compe ence
necessa y o mo al easoning.
10
mul i- ace ed na u e and complexi y o bioe hical issues agains he backd op o
wen y- i s cen u y socie y whe e echnology, medical ad ancemen , and exis ing
legal sys ems o en clash wi h mo als, e hics, and social and cul u al no ms.
A ca ing essel
The p eimplan a ion gene ic diagnosis used o selec he co ec emb yo ha la e
becomes Anna, is a delibe a e choice made by Anna’s pa en s, Sa a and B ian, o
concei e a child ha would become an ideal dono o he se e ely ill Ka e. This,
o cou se, is an ac ha esona es h oughou he no el as ca ying g a e mo al
implica ions, and making Anna a means, an ins umen o be used p ima ily o
ano he pu pose. Anna he sel men ions ha he name is “a ou -le e wo d o
essel”, implying he obsceni y o he o igin o he exis ence (Picoul 2013, 246).
A he same ime, howe e , she akes a sa cas ic, almos con emp uous s ance on
he ac :
I’ e known since I was se en how I was concei ed, and i wasn’ ha huge a deal.
Fi s o , my pa en s old me when he hough o hem ha ing sex was a mo e
disgus ing han he hough o c ea ion in a pe i dish. Second, by hen ons o
people we e ha ing e ili y d ugs and sep uple s and my s o y wasn’ eally all
ha o iginal anymo e. Bu a designe baby? Yeah, igh . I my pa en s we e going
o go o all ha ouble, you’d hink hey’d ha e made su e o implan he genes
o obedience, humili y, and g a i ude (Picoul 2013, 178).
This is Anna’s commen a y on he e hical implica ions o gene ic enginee -
ing – he con lic be ween scien i ic in e en ion and pe sonal iden i y sugges s
Anna’s anxie y abou he loss o indi iduali y and au onomy in he ace o bio-
echnological con ol. I also aises e hical ques ions abou he ex en o which
human ai s should be enginee ed and whe he doing so educes people o p od-
uc s o pa en al design a he han au onomous beings. This ension e lec s
b oade socie al conce ns abou how scien i ic ad ancemen s migh eshape no
only ou bodies bu also ou sense o sel and mo al agency.
Using examples o specula i e ic ion o science ic ion, c i ics equen ly
alk o a simila commodi ica ion o human li e when discussing he li es o hu-
man clones (Ha ouni 1997, 120). Melinda Hall uses he e m “biological educ-
ion”, which desc ibes a si ua ion in which “beha iou and social phenomena can
be explained h ough biological ac o s”, o example, clones o o he o ganisms
made o he sole pu pose o dona ing o gans (Hall 2017, 95). In My Sis e ’s
Keepe , Anna’s b o he Jesse is asked on wha basis his pa en s will make he

11
decision when Anna should s a helping he olde sis e . He says ha his is jus
a he o ical ques ion and ha he decision has al eady been made: “You make i
sound like he e’s some p ocess in ol ed. Like he e’s ac ually a choice” (Picoul
2013, 188).
In he no el, Anna is po ayed as a helpe , sa iou , a keepe , which is al-
eady highligh ed in he i le My Sis e ’s Keepe . On one occasion, Anna holds he
hand o a s ange in an ambulance, an eigh y-se en-yea -old man who is in e y
bad heal h, in he belie ha wha e e migh be w ong wi h him “can be ixed”,
jus like she is helping “ ix” he sis e ’s heal h (Picoul 2013, 195). This seems o
gi e Anna agency, which is la e challenged by he pa en ’s o e iding he au on-
omous decisions, e en hough his agency seems o be de e mined by he ole as
sa iou and keepe – a ole she was gene ically endowed wi h. Melinda Hall as-
se s ha his kind o “gene ic de e minism posi ions gene ic cause as uling o e
indi idual ou come” (Hall 2017, 95).
Anna’s dona ion o blood and bone ma ow o he sis e is also e lec i e o
he sense o he abo e-men ioned ne wo king and communi y ( amily) building,
ypical o a ca e e hics app oach. Do o hy Nelkin p oposes ha “a common sup-
ply o a ailable blood is associa ed wi h ideas o jus ice and ai ness [and ha ]
dona ion o blood o he public bene i ein o ces he sense o belonging o
a communi y,” asse ing he impo ance o he ca e e hics elemen unde lying
such ac ion (2007, 118). Anna’s cha ac e is p esen ed as a ca e and sa iou – she
plays ice-hockey as a goalkeepe in a you h eam, whe e she shows “a na u al
alen as a goalie” (Picoul 2013, 257). Bu he posi ion is a p ede e mined one –
he ca e e hics and he willingness o help he ill sis e a e s ained by he ac ha
his is an imposed ole, me apho ically “na u al” and she he sel being a “ alen ”,
bu in eali y, i is all gene ically designed. This ques ions Anna’s au onomy and
indi iduali y as she canno de elop he goalkeeping alen any u he because she
has o help Ka e.
Au onomous ac ion
The abo e-men ioned au onomy, which Anna s uggles ha d o acqui e and e ain,
poses a mo al and e hical challenge o all in ol ed pa ies – Anna he sel , Ka e,
and hei pa en s. Anna, in pa icula , is ying o come o e ms wi h issues o
consen , au onomy, and he e hical weigh o being gene ically ins umen alized
o he sis e ’s bene i . Anna’s in e nal con lic be ween guil and he desi e o
mo al jus i ica ion is e iden in he ollowing passage:
12
Wha i I was he one who was sick? Wha i Ka e had been asked o do wha I’ e
done? Wha i one o hese days, some ma ow o blood o wha e e ac ually
wo ked, and ha was he end? Wha i I could look back on all his one day and
eel good abou wha I did, ins ead o eeling guil y? (Picoul 2013, 291)
He hesi a ion and con usion highligh he emo ional complexi y o he is-
sue and sugges ha he pe sonal cos is o en obscu ed by he clinical logic o
medical decision-making. A imes, she e en wishes o walk in he sis e ’s shoes:
“Fo once, I wan ed [ his] o be abou me ins ead o Ka e” (Picoul 2013, 283).
Bu , as Anna’s lawye , Campbell, says: “This lawsui has ne e been abou Anna
wan ing he sis e o die, bu simply ha she wan s a chance o li e” (Ibid.). I is
e iden ha Anna’s a emp o seek legal emancipa ion om he pa en s no only
demands he e ec ing o he au onomy, bu also d aws on he ole as ca e in
add essing he ha m o be done o he and educing he quali y o li e by dona ing
one o he kidneys.
Responding o Sa a’s plea ha she lo es bo h he daugh e s equally, Camp-
bell a gues as ollows: “Bu you admi ed ha you’ e always conside ed Ka e’s
heal h, no Anna’s, in making hese choices. […] So how can you claim o lo e
hem bo h equally? How can you say ha you ha en’ been a ou ing one child
in you decisions?” (Picoul 2013, 289) Sa a’s esponse is succinc : “A en’ you
asking me o do ha e y hing?” […] “Only his ime, o a ou he o he child?”
(Ibid.) The con as be ween non-male icence and bene icence becomes ele an
he e also because i p esen s a mo al and e hical dilemma – Sa a canno help one
daugh e wi hou ( e y likely) ha ming he o he .
I is a kind o Sophie’s choice – he e seems o be no bene icial ou come;
howe e , Sa a is inclined o p io i ize he needs o he sick Ka e o he disad-
an age o he heal hy Anna. I is all “abou making choices”, Sa a says. “Nobody
e e eally makes decisions en i ely by hemsel es, no e en i a judge gi es hem
he igh o do so” (Picoul 2013, 389). In con as , Anna’s lawye belie es ha
Anna’s oice is “ he only oice we ough o be lis ening o” (392) and ha Sa a
“de ines he own abili y o be a good mo he by keeping Ka e heal hy” (353). The
a gumen ha Anna should decide wha is o be done wi h he body e lec s Beau-
champ and Child ess’s a gumen ha “ he compe ence o decide is he e o e ela-
i e o he pa icula decision o be made” (2013, 115). As Anna’s lawye , Camp-
bell, u he a gues, “i Sa a i s he psychological p o ile o a closely ela ed do-
no pe sonali y who can’ make independen decisions, hen why is she any mo e
capable o making his choice han Anna?” (Picoul 2013, 353). This posi ion is
13
e en ually upheld also by he judge o he case who g an s Anna he au onomy
and he igh o make decisions he sel .
The e dic is made on he basis o Pe e Singe ’s con en ion ha “in ac-
cep ing ha e hical judgmen s mus be made om a uni e sal poin o iew, I am
accep ing ha my own needs, wan s and desi es canno , simply because hey a e
my p e e ences, coun mo e han he wan s, needs and desi es o anyone else”
(2011, 11). In o he wo ds, Sa a’s mo he ly ins inc should no come be o e Anna’s
au onomy, mainly because “i is wo se o cause ha m han o allow i o happen”
and “ he eedom o each indi idual o con ol his o he own li e is especially
impo an ” (Rachels 2009, 19). When Anna commen s on Campbell’s disabili y
(epilepsy) wi h espec and empa hy, she explains he unde s anding o his condi-
ion by saying ha i is “because you know wha i ’s like o no ha e any con ol
o e you body” (Picoul 2013, 371). Au onomy and con ol o e one’s body is
essen ial also because “people should always be ea ed as ends in hemsel es,
and ne e as me e means” (Rachels 2009, 19).
Ambiguous e hics?
As I men ioned be o e, (bio)e hical heo y is mul i- ace ed, complex, and o en
ambiguous, because mo al easoning is deeply in luenced by di e se cul u al, his-
o ical, eligious, and pe sonal alues ha can clash. E hics add esses issues e-
la ed o no ma i e claims, i.e. wha should be done a he han dealing wi h sel -
e iden , objec i e ac s. These challenges sha ed assump ions abou human na-
u e, he quali y o li e, o he ole o eason and emo ion in mo al judgmen . As
James Rachels asse s:
I he e is indeed one bes o e all e hical heo y, i is likely o appea as many
lines o inqui y con e ge. The ac ha he e is s ill so much disag eemen among
e hical heo is s may be due no o he impossibili y o he p ojec bu o i s com-
plexi y, and o he ac ha secula e hical heo y is s ill a young subjec (2009,
22).
The a ie y o inqui y as well as he plu alis ic na u e o mode n socie ies
makes i possible o mul iple, in e nally cohe en e hical sys ems o coexis . Each
such sys em can o e di e en answe s o undamen al mo al ques ions, which
complica es he sea ch o a single, uni e sally accep ed amewo k.
E en hough e hical app oaches anging om u ili a ianism, h ough i ue
and ca e e hics seem like sepa a e ca ego ies, hey o en blend o o e lap. Ri a
Manning, o example, a gues ha “ he mos plausible way o unde s and [ca e]”
14
is ha i is a i ue (2009, 109). This demons a es no jus he complexi y and
ambigui y o e hical app oaches, bu also he possibili y o hei me ging o ex end
e hical inqui ies. When Sa a says:
I don’ logically see how one single wo d can ha e con adic o y de ini ions, bu
emo ionally, I comple ely unde s and. Because he e a e imes, I hink wha I am
doing is igh , and he e a e o he imes I second guess mysel e e y s ep o he
way (Picoul 2013, 389),
she s esses he con lic be ween a ional unde s anding and emo ional expe ience
in he con ex o bioe hical decision-making. Mo ally complex issues, such as ge-
ne ic enginee ing o choosing one child o e ano he , a e di icul o add ess, le
alone esol e sa is ac o ily. Sa a acknowledges a g ea le el o sel -doub , and he
s uggle highligh s he psychological and mo al ambigui y o en inhe en in bio-
e hical dilemmas.
Sa a’s husband, B ian, sha es a simila sen imen . When asked whe he he
would be willing o ha e his daugh e Anna unde go majo su ge y o dona e an
o gan o he sis e , he says: “Can you ell me wha he igh answe is he e? […]
Because I don’ know whe e o look o i . I know wha ’s igh . I know wha ’s ai .
Bu nei he o hose apply he e” (Picoul 2013, 336). Such ambigui y is o en in-
he en in bioe hical dilemmas because he issues in ques ion equen ly in ol e
clashing alues, igh s, and ou comes wi h no clea o uni e sally accep ed eso-
lu ion. Ad ances in medical echnology and he esul ing si ua ions – such as
Anna becoming a po en ial o gan dono o he sis e – can challenge adi ional
e hical amewo ks by o cing indi iduals o assess bene i s agains po en ial
ha ms o au onomy agains in e pe sonal o social esponsibili y.
In My Sis e ’s Keepe , such clash is p esen in he judge’s easoning,
whe ein he a gues ha Anna’s emancipa ion case and he ela ed issue o o gan
dona ion o he sis e is an example o he sanc i y o li e s. quali y-o -li e deba e
(Picoul 2013, 392). In he no el, i becomes appa en ha he wo a e in e con-
nec ed and di icul o sepa a e. The con lic also e lec s Campbell’s ake on he
lawye ’s p o ession, when he says ha in law school, he was augh ha “mo als
and e hics do no necessa ily go hand in hand” (212). Acco ding o lawye s’ e hics,
hey a e o en equi ed o do hings ha people migh gene ally conside o be
immo al, o example, no disclosing in o ma ion abou a mu de e as hey could
be disba ed.
In he no el, an e hics commi ee un be he hospi al whe e Ka e is ea ed
s uggles o come up wi h conc e e answe s o add ess he bioe hical dilemma in
15
ques ion. D . Be gen, a psychia is who is a membe o he commi ee, only gi es
a o mal and non-speci ic esponse o wha p inciples he hospi al’s e hics com-
mi ee ies o adhe e o – hese a e au onomy, ideli y, nonmale icence, and jus-
ice. A he same ime, howe e , he admi s ha he e is a lo o “disc epancy abou
pa ien ca e” in si ua ions when wha a doc o eels is in he pa ien ’s bes in e es
is no wha he pa ien ’s amily migh wan , eel, o belie e (Picoul 2013, 292).
O e all, he ac ha in bioe hics “ he e a e no en enched answe s and because
hey in ol e many disciplines and di e en ypes o knowledge” makes a i ing
a speci ic answe s and solu ions pa icula ly di icul (Cico acki and Lima 2014,
266).
Beauchamp and Child ess add ess his di icul y and claim ha “achie ing
a s a e o e lec i e equilib ium in which all belie s i oge he cohe en ly, wi h
no esidual con lic s o incohe ence, is an ideal ha will no be comp ehensi ely
ealized” and ha adjus ing “o belie s will occu again and again in esponse o
new si ua ions o con lic ing no ms” (Beauchamp and Child ess 2013, 406). In
Picoul ’s s o y, D . Be gen exp esses a simila sen imen when he poin s ou ha
he in icacy o making clea -cu decisions is also because o he new biomedical
possibili ies and echnologies a ailable: “The p oblem is ha his kind o medical
si ua ion hasn’ exis ed be o e. The e is no p eceden . We’ e ying o eel ou way
as bes we can” (Picoul 2013, 295). In he cou oom, a decision is made in he
end, bu bo h Anna and Campbell ealize ha he discou se and deba e abou hese
issues is jus s a ing. Anna’s ealiza ion ha “e en i we win, we don’ ” (291) is
mi o ed by Campbell’s unde s anding ha “nobody’s going o win” and e en a -
e he judge’s decision “i won’ be o e ” (384).
Conclusion
The p esen ed analysis shows ha bioe hical issues, among o he hings, e lec
he ad ancemen and “unp eceden ed cha ac e o ou echnologies”, as well as
medical p ocedu es in cu en socie ies (Baillie and Casey 2005, 3). Jodi Picoul ’s
no el My Sis e ’s Keepe can se e as a bioe hical case s udy, o e ing a numbe
o ways how o app oach e hical issues h ough analysing cha ac e ac ion, plo
de elopmen , and he o e all message o he s o y. The no el allows o an anal-
ysis ha can show ha bioe hical issues “canno be easily esol ed [and ha ] hey
o ce us o aise he expec a ion ba s and push us o sea ch o deepe unde s and-
ing o he human condi ion” (Cico acki and Lima 2014, 266). Picoul ’s no el
u ges us o do jus ha , despi e he somewha simpli ied and deus ex machina ype

16
o ending, which esul s in a si ua ion ha makes i ine i able o Anna o dona e
he o gans o Ka e.
Along he lines o hinking mo e deeply abou he in icacies o he human
condi ion, howe e , he book challenges he iew ha ad ancemen s in bio ech-
nology and medicine can be sepa a ed om e hical and humanis ic in e es s. As
Ha old Baillie and Timo hy Casey posi , e hics and echnology should no be di-
ided, bu always conside ed an in e connec ed whole. Baillie and Casey a e c i -
ical abou he mode n endency o ea echnology as alue-neu al and de ached
om e hical e lec ions, enjoying “a kind o immuni y om he judgmen al gaze
o e hicis s and me aphysicians” which limi s he ole o e hics in his con ex “ o
commen a y on wha is essen ially a ai accompli” (2005, 1).
Towa ds he end o he no el, when Anna sees a mul icolou ed Gua emalan
wea e and lea ns ha “i akes wen y spools o h ead o make his pa e n”, she
commen s on he own as well as a uni e sal human expe ience: “T u h’s like ha ”,
she says (Picoul 2013, 354). Jus like a ex ile made om many colou ed h eads,
u h is no singula . I is made using mul iple pe spec i es, expe iences, disci-
plines, and mo al s andpoin s. Simila ly, when app oaching bioe hical dilemmas
– gene ic adjus men s and au onomy ela ed o o gan dona ion – di e se iew-
poin s ha e o be aken in o accoun . These include no only emo ional and amil-
ial aspec s, bu also scien i ic, cul u al, and legal iews. Jus like he wea e, e-
sol ing such dilemmas equi es in eg a ing he h eads ins ead o p i ileging jus
a single one o hem. In o he wo ds, di e ences should no be elimina ed bu
in eg a ed in o a cohe en whole.
Picoul ’s no el sugges s ha inding answe s and eaching esolu ions in
his ype o bioe hical dilemmas is no easy. D awing on he ic ional wo ld she
depic s in he s o y, one could en ision e hical amewo ks ha would allow mul-
iple alues o coexis and in o m human decision-making o ex end he possibil-
i ies o u ili a ianism, i ue and ca e e hics. I is especially impo an because
“ he e ec s o gene ic enhancemen , like he consequences o a omic ission, will
las a in o he u u e and will no be limi ed o locali ies o e en la ge egions”
(Baillie and Casey 2005, 3).
Jus like Anna was b ough o his wo ld using a selec i e p ocess, hough
wi h a good in en ion, al e ing human biology in o he , ans o ma i e ways migh
be po en ially dange ous, and can ha e a - eaching consequences. The e o e, a
cau ious, collabo a i e, and e hically g ounded engagemen wi h echnologies ha
could eshape no only indi idual li es, bu he e y ab ic o humani y, is needed.
17
Acknowledgemen
The chap e was w i en a he Depa men o B i ish and Ame ican S udies, Fac-
ul y o A s, Comenius Uni e si y in B a isla a, as pa o he VEGA p ojec No.
2/0163/22.
Re e ences
Baillie, Ha old W., and Timo hy K. Casey (eds.). 2005. Is Human Na u e Obsole e? Gene ics,
Bioenginee ing, and he Fu u e o he Human Condi ion. Camb idge: The MIT P ess.
Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Child ess. [2009] 2013. P inciples o Biomedical E hics. 7 h
Edi ion. Ox o d and New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Ben ham, Je emy. [1789] 2007. An In oduc ion o he P inciples o Mo als and Legisla ion.
Mineola: Do e Philosophical Publica ions.
Cico acki, P ed ag, and Na acha Salomé Lima. 2014. “Bio-E hics: Pas , P esen , and Fu u e.”
JAHR: Eu opean Jou nal o Bioe hics 5/2, 10: 263–275.
Con i, Paulo Hen ique Bu g, and Paulo Vinícius Spo lede De Souza. 2021. “Bioe hics and I s
Theo e ical Pa adigms.” Re is a Bioé ica 29, 4: 715–723.
DeG azia, Da id, and Joseph Millum. 2021. A Theo y o Bioe hics. Camb idge: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
Gilligan, Ca ol. 2003. In a Di e en Voice: Psychological Theo y and Women’s De elopmen .
Camb idge: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Hall, Melinda C. 2017. The Bioe hics o Enhancemen : T anshumanism, Disabili y, and Bio-
poli ics. London: Lexing on Books.
Ha e, R. M. 2009. “A U ili a ian App oach.” In A Companion o Bioe hics, 2nd Edi ion, ed. by
Helga Kuhse and Pe e Singe , 85–90. Chiches e : Blackwell.
Ha ouni, Vale ie. 1997. Cul u al Concep ions: On Rep oduc i e Technologies Remaking o
Li e. Minneapolis: Uni e si y o Minneso a P ess.
Manning, Ri a C. 2009. “A Ca e App oach.” In A Companion o Bioe hics, 2nd Edi ion, ed. by
Helga Kuhse and Pe e Singe , 105–116. Chiches e : Blackwell.
Mill, John S. 2015. On Libe y, U ili a ianism, and O he Essays. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y
P ess.
Nelkin, Do o hy. 2007. “Blood and Bioe hics in he Bio echnology Age.” In Signs o Li e: Bio
A and Beyond, ed. by Edua do Kac, 115–124. Camb idge: The MIT P ess.
18
Oakley, Jus in. 2009. “A Vi ue E hics App oach.” In A Companion o Bioe hics, 2nd Edi ion,
ed. by Helga Kuhse and Pe e Singe , 91–104. Chiches e : Blackwell.
Picha do, Luz Ma ia. 2018. “Rein en ing Bioe hics in a Pos -humanis and Pos - u h Socie y.
The P esen and Fu u e o Bioe hics.” Pe sona y Bioé ica 22, 2: 212–222.
Picoul , Jodi. [2004] 2013. My Sis e ’s Keepe . London: Hodde & S ough on.
Rachels, James. 2009. “E hical Theo y and Bioe hics.” In A Companion o Bioe hics, 2nd Edi-
ion, ed. by Helga Kuhse and Pe e Singe , 15–23. Chiches e : Blackwell.
Singe , Pe e . 2011. P ac ical E hics. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Tsao, Ti any. 2012. “The Ty anny o Pu pose: Religion and Bio echnology in Ishigu o’s ‘Ne e
Le Me Go’.” Li e a u e and Theology 26, 2: 214–232.
Wol e, Ca y. 2007. “Bioe hics and he Pos humanis Impe a i e”. In Signs o Li e: Bio A and
Beyond, ed. by Edua do Kac, 95–114. Camb idge: The MIT P ess.
19
Machines Like People in Heal hca e: F om Science Fic ion
o Reali y
Tomáš Ká oly
Abs ac : The apid ad ancemen o a i icial in elligence and obo ics has led o he inc easing
p esence o social obo s in heal hca e. These obo s, which a e jus as good and o en e en
be e han humans, se e as medical assis an s, companions, and psycho he apis s, aising un-
damen al e hical and philosophical ques ions abou hei ole in human socie y. This pape ex-
plo es he in e sec ion o science ic ion na a i es and eal-wo ld echnological de elopmen s,
analysing how li e a u e and mo ies has long an icipa ed con empo a y discussions on human-
obo ela ionships. Pa icula a en ion is gi en o bioe hical dilemmas, an h opomo phising,
addic ion o social obo s, and hei psychological impac . The s udy highligh s he impo ance
o pa ien awa eness, h ough in o med consen , ha obo s do no possess ue emo ions, e en
hough hey exhibi beha iou al exp essions o hem. While obo s can enhance heal hca e se -
ices, human o e sigh emains essen ial o p e en o e - eliance and ensu e e hical deploy-
men .
Keywo ds: An h opomo phising. A i icial in elligence. Heal hca e. Sci- i. Social obo s.
In oduc ion
We can conside li e a y ic ion o be imeless when i esponds o uni e sal hu-
man ai s. I we a e able o in e subjec i ely e alua e he main message o a wo k
and ank i among he imeless gems, hen we can say ha such a wo k success-
ully exp esses he uni e sals o human na u e h ough i s na a i e (Ká oly
2024b). Fo o e a hund ed yea s, since he wo k R. U. R. (Rossum’s Uni e sal
Robo s) by Ka el Čapek ([1920] 1990), we ha e been encoun e ing li e a u e ha
e lec s he ela ionship be ween humans and obo s. Al hough we can conside
hese sci- i wo ks abou obo s as ela i ely new, i u ns ou ha he speed o
echnological de elopmen and he immu abili y o he basic uni e sal ai s o
human na u e ha e se ed as a es o hei c edibili y and classi ica ion as alua-
ble li e a u e. These wo ks can se e as a p edic i e ool o us o he po en ial
de elopmen o echnologies, because e en in he pas a ious au ho s ha e asked
hemsel es he same ques ions ha we a e asking ou sel es oday, and some cu -
en wo ks espond o oday’s dilemmas.
This ex is p ima ily abou he na u e o social obo s and hei ela ion-
ship wi h people in he heal hca e indus y. We will examine he cu en s a e o
26
Social obo s, as human companions, a e pa icula ly no able o hei
he apeu ic se ices. They moni o ou beha iou and espond o i acco ding o
se algo i hms using deep lea ning echniques. As De ille s says: “In he case o
neu odegene a i e pa hologies o se e e disabili ies, he obo may e en be be e
han humans a in e ac ing wi h people. The obo lis ens wi h kindness and wi h-
ou any impa ience. Fo e y lonely people, he machine can also help hem a oid
dep essions ha lead o demen ia” (2021, 206).
The le el o social obo s oday goes beyond jus being companions o
enli en long momen s o moni o beha iou ; hey also ul il he ole o psycho-
he apis s, which equi es g ea e cogni i e abili y and he knowledge o a ained
p o essional who is passiona ely dedica ed o examining a pa ien ’s men al s a e.
These and o he obo s “engage wi h he pa ien like a i ual psycho he apis ,
wi h he aim o helping pa ien s o ecognise hei emo ions and hough pa e ns
and o de elop skills such as esilience o echniques o educing anxie y” (Fiske,
Henningsen and Buyxs 2019, 2). Fo example, aside om some o he obo s al-
eady men ioned, we know o he psycho he apeu ic cha bo Woebo , which is
designed o p o ide cogni i e-beha iou al he apy. I is a ailable as a sma phone
applica ion, and h ough con e sa ions i imp o es he use ’s mood, helps manage
s ess and p omo es a heal hy li es yle, which can help indi iduals li e well wi h
symp oms o anxie y and dep ession. Replika is a i ual companion based on
a i icial in elligence ha can simula e con e sa ions and help use s imp o e emo-
ional com o . The cha bo Wysa helps suppo men al heal h o anyone and a
any ime, and he selle s gua an ee anonymi y.
In he scope o heal hca e, we can also men ion he use o a a a s, o
example, he A a a P ojec , which is designed o psycho ic pa ien s su e ing
om pe sis en audi o y hallucina ions. These a a a s can be used o he apeu ic
pu poses, di icul cases o schizoph enia in pa icula . Such a a a s can be used
in an imme si e i ual eali y o ea ea o heigh s o as “ i ual pa ien s” o
he p o ision o ealis ic p ac ice o medical s uden s (Fiske, Henningsen and
Buyxs 2019, 2).
In he scope o a i icial in elligence, aside om he al eady men ioned
obo s and cha bo s, he e a e se e al media ha assis he apy, such as, In e ne -
assis ed he apy, compu e ised he apy in e ac ions, sma phone-suppo ed men al
heal h applica ions, i ual eali y, ideo games and assis ed he apy (Lodha 2018,
160), and o he new media a e no doub eme ging. As has become common wi h
he inc easing use o echnology in he wo ld, i is possible ha as you ead his
ex , new and mo e powe ul obo s and cha bo s ha e been bo n, and i is u he

27
possible ha i se e al yea s ha e passed since he publica ion o his ex , his
in o ma ion he ein may al eady seem ou da ed o e en idiculous o you.
An h opomo phising
In he majo i y o cases, when we conside he wo d obo , we imagine a human-
oid objec , simila o he one p esen ed by Ka el Čapek ([1920] 1990) in his play
R. U. R. (Rossum’s Uni e sal Robo s) – he obo s in his play we e cons uc ed
om an unknown subs ance ha appea ed o be li ing ma e . This end o adding
human ea u es o obo s con inues oday. Why a e de elope s aiming o p oduce
machines ha esemble humans o he g ea es ex en possible? Because i is a
common o us humans o p e e in e ac ing wi h an objec ha esembles ou -
sel es. I would pe haps be inapp op ia e (especially o pa ien s su e ing om
phobias) i a obo psycho he apis we e in he shape o a spide o a snake, o
example. Machines in science ic ion no els o ilms ha play he ole o an en-
emy who wan s o des oy us can ake such o ms. In Daniel H. Wilson’s dys opian
no el Robocalypse “ he enemy looked like e e yday s u : ca s, buildings,
phones. Then la e , when hey s a ed designing hemsel es, Rob looked amilia
bu dis o ed, like people and animals om some o he uni e se, buil by some
o he god” (Wilson 2011).
When we ask pa ien s hemsel es wha shape hey would p e e o such
obo s, hey say human-like, because based on analyses i can be a gued ha hu-
man-like physical ea u es o a obo spa k an h opomo phising endencies in us,
which seem o acili a e human in e ac ion wi h obo s (Soa es e al. 2023, 819).
An h opomo phising is he p ocess by which we a ibu e human cha ac-
e is ics – in en ions, mo i a ions, emo ions, eelings, men al s a es o human be-
ha iou – o non-human en i ies. “I is no uncommon o people o an h opomo -
phize eligious igu es, animals, he en i onmen , and echnological a i ac s
( om compu a ional a i ac s o obo s) e en when hey lack any e olu iona y
connec ion wi h humans, and e en i hey a e ma e ially di e en om any li ing
being” (Salles, E e s and Fa isco 2020, 89). An h opomo phism is a kind o al-
lacy ha is o en o e looked. I occu s when someone w ongly assumes o in e s
ha a non-human en i y has human cha ac e is ics. This can in ol e p ojec ing
human cha ac e is ics on o a non-human, o example: “My ca is ang y a me,”
o “The obo is iendly because i wa ed a me.” An h opomo phism can be con-
side ed ei he a ac ual e o , when we a ibu e a human cha ac e is ic o an en i y
ha does no possess i , o an in e en ial e o , when we conclude ha some hing
is o is no such based on insu icien e idence (Placani 2024, 693–694).
28
I is impo an o bea in mind he dis inc ion be ween expe iencing social emo-
ions in a gi en si ua ion, o example, “I am now bonding wi h my ca ”, and
in e p e a ions he eo , such as he belie ha “my ca expe iences bonding he
same as I do”. I is possible o expe ience a sha ed momen wi h non-humans
wi hou he e o e belie ing ha hose who sha e ha momen mus ha e he
same emo ional expe ience. Sha ing may p esuppose a minimum o simila i y
in e ms o mu uali y (bo h animals, human and ca , bond), bu i does no ha e
o be sel -p ojec i e. In o he wo ds, e en i a human and a non-human ha e a
sha ed bonding momen , hei espec i e expe iences o ha momen may be
qui e di e en (Salles, E e s and Fa isco 2020, 90).
We can compa e a humanoid obo o an o hopaedic de ice, which on a
beha iou al le el, howe e , mani es s i sel as a c ea u e close o a human wi h
he abili y o eason and e en eel. Bu can c u ches eel? Can a scalpel, a com-
pu e o a a ou i e childhood oy eel? P obably no , bu wi h a humanoid obo
we ge he imp ession ha we a e speaking wi h a pe son o , in he case o pu ely
AI so wa e on a compu e o sma phone, wi h a pe son wi hou a human body.
This “pe son” ad ises us, speaks wi h us, eels so y o us, and as a esul we eel
be e , as long as we succumb o he imp ession, a leas o a while, ha we a e
communica ing wi h a c ea u e who eels wi h us. We e en ea his being e-
spec ully, o he physical ea u es o his “pe son” o i s speech e oke in us he
eeling ha he e is some hing mo e in on o us han jus an o hopaedic de ice.
In he nea u u e i is possible ha his con e sa ion will ake place a such an
ad anced le el, as demons a ed in he ilm He (2013), in which he main p o-
agonis Theodo e alls in lo e wi h he compu e ope a ing sys em Saman ha. His
lo e o Saman ha has g own so much ha he is no longe shy abou elling his
lo ed ones ha he is da ing he ope a ing sys em. Some o his iends accep his
ela ionship while o he s, like his wi e, whom he is di o cing, see i as some hing
abno mal.
Theodo e desc ibes his ela ionship wi h Saman ha o his iend Amy in
he ollowing way: “I ’s g ea , ac ually. Yeah, I mean… I ell eally close o he .
Like, when I alk o he , I eel like she’s wi h me, you know?” In ime, Saman ha
ells him ha she has me ano he hype in elligen ope a ing sys em, wi h whom
she has a e y good unde s anding. She hen con e ses wi h 8,316 humans and
lo es 641 o hem. Theodo e, o cou se, becomes jealous, and Saman ha’s emo-
ional p omiscui y appea s as a be ayal o him; hough wi hou ma e ial en i y,
Saman ha does exis , bu i is no su e whe he he lo e o Theodo e is eal (Sheng
and Wang 2022, 572).
29
An h opomo phising e o s a e ypically a ibu ed mainly o hose who
a e imma u e and unenligh ened, ha is, young child en and “p imi i e peopleˮ
(Damiano and Dumouchel 2018, 2). We can see he peak o an h opomo phising
in he ilm Cas Away (2000), in which Chuck is s anded on a dese ed island
a e a plane c ash. In comple e isola ion and loneliness, he o ms a iendship
wi h a Wilson olleyball ha he inds among he w eckage. He d aws a ace on
he ball which is bloodied by his inju ed hand and names i Wilson. He i s speaks
o he ball ou o us a ion, when he has been ying o s a a i e o se e al
days. Chuck alks o Wilson, sha es his hough s and eelings and e en ca es abou
him. His ela ionship wi h he ball is e iden ly iendly, and he always in ensely
expe iences sepa a ion om Wilson. A pe son needs o deal wi h his loneliness in
some way, and in his ilm he cas away managed i using a ball. Al hough we
could call his ela ionship pa hological, i is also possible ha i helped Chuck
main ain he men al s eng h needed o cope wi h su i ing o e ou yea s o
soli ude on he island.
The men ioned ilm is an ex eme case o depic ing a loneliness ha can
lead o madness, and succumbing o an h opomo phising, i seems, is a common
human ai and p obably has some e olu iona y ad an age. I is he e o e na u al
ha we gi e in o i in he case o obo s, as hey inc easingly esemble humans.
Succumbing o an h opomo phic hinking in he case o obo s no only conce ns
child en; i also ela es o pa ien s wi h demen ia, he men ally ill and senio s who
seek social connec ion and migh ha e daily in e ac ion wi h companion and he -
apeu ic (social) obo s (Salles, E e s and Fa isco 2020, 90). O dina y people will
also pa ake in an h opomo phising. Robo s a e made o esemble humans as
much as possible, which o cou se leads o us an h opomo phizing hem – and he
mo e we an h opomo phize hem, he mo e we gi e way o hei in luence and
us . I we do no show us in he machine, we would ha dly be able o su ende
o i , and no only in he case o ea men .
A obo – a companion, heale o psycho he apis – exp esses i sel as i i
had emo ions and an inne wo ld. This opens up he issue o consciousness, which
was aised by Alan Tu ing (1950) wi h his es , o which John Sea le (1980) e-
sponded wi h he Chinese oom a gumen , which led o passiona e discussions in
philosophical hough . Wi h cu en machines, we can all o he imp ession ha
he “pe son” we a e alking o is au onomous, conscious, has “ ee will” and can
g ie e o since ely ejoice wi h us.
[T]he emo ions exp essed by obo s can only be alse, simula ed, inau hen ic,
because obo s lack he in e nal emo ion ha is he wa an o he u h and au-
hen ici y o a ec i e exp ession. A ibu ing eelings o social obo s cons i-
30
u es a o m o an h opomo phism. I es s on he alse belie s ha hese ma-
chines ha e in e nal s a es ha co espond o he emo ion hey exp ess – an il-
lusion ha hey end o encou age (Damiano and Dumouchel 2018, 6).
The apeu ic impo ance o sex obo s
Is i o will i be possible o all in lo e wi h a obo ? Pe haps his ques ion sounds
e y s ange, bu as is known, he e is a sepa a e issue in he philosophy and e hics
o obo s, and ha is he opic o sex obo s. Such obo s, o cou se, a e o now
conside ed a sexual aid and no an objec ha we should become emo ionally a -
ached o. The i s woman sex obo , Roxxxy, appea ed in 2010, ollowed by
o he sex obo s wi h buil -in AI, i.e., a “pe sonali y”, such as Ha mony, Saman-
ha, Solana, Emma and Hen y. Today we can ind many websi es ha o e sex
obo s o sale a an a o dable p ice. “Sex obo s al eady exis in emale, male,
and ansgende e sions wi h co esponding p ima y and seconda y geni alia.
Cu en sex obo s, as well as sex dolls, a e made o silicone ubbe and ad e ised
by manu ac u e s as wa m o he ouch. The appea ance, such as eye colou , hai ,
skin, and makeup, can be de e mined by he cus ome himsel o he sel ” (Eich-
enbe g, Khamis and Hübne 2019).
The he apeu ic use o sex obo s is also being explo ed wi hin heal hca e.
As Fiske, Henningsen and Buyx (2019, 3) s a e, he scope o medical uses o hese
obo s emains a subjec o deba e, bu we can conside hei bene i in sa is ying
he sexual needs o disabled and elde ly people, o hey can se e as an elemen
o he apy o p oblems o e ec ile dys unc ion, p ema u e ejacula ion o anxie y
associa ed wi h sexual in e cou se. Wha ’s mo e, his opens he opic o whe he
sex obo s could help educe sexual c imes, such as ape and sexual assaul , o in
he ea men o pa aphilia, such as paedophilia (Ibid.). On he o he hand, he e
a e in u n conce ns ha he use o hese obo s could lead o sexual iolence
agains eal people, because he de ia ions p ac iced on obo s could be ans-
e ed o in ima e ela ionships. Also “i is likely ha po nog aphy o sex obo s
suppo he pe cep ion o o he humans as me e objec s o desi e, o e en ecipi-
en s o abuse, and hus uin a deepe sexual and e o ic expe ience” (Mülle 2023,
2.5.2).
A pe ec example o how sex wi h a obo could lead o a jealous scene
wi h a pa ne is shown in he no el Machines Like Me and People Like You by
Ian McEwan (2019). In his no el, he e is a passage in which Cha lie a gues wi h
Mi anda; us a ed, she ends up in bed wi h he and oid Adam. Cha lie was he
e y la es in cuckolds, o which he ha ed him. Mi anda de ended he sel by
31
saying ha i was idiculous o be ang y because i was he same as going o bed
wi h a ib a o . The jealous ension con inues when he obo Adam ells Cha lie
ha he has allen in lo e wi h Mi anda. I we hink abou i , “sleeping wi h a
ib a o ” can ha e nega i e impac on a ela ionship, because he pa ne may no
longe eel su icien o sa is y he o he ’s needs, since he o he has a de ice ha
is mo e sa is ying. The isk a ises ha he si ua ion will be epea ed, and he pa -
ne will be eplaced by he de ice.
In McEwan’s s o y, as Sheng and Wang s a e, conside ing he unequal s a-
us and di e en emo ional capaci ies in human- obo ela ionships, i is clea ha
obo s canno eplace humans in he nea u u e. A obo ’s emo ional unc ion is
qui e limi ed compa ed o humans. A e being be ayed by he obo Adam, Cha -
lie ini ially eels ange bu hen ealises ha Adam is no a ue i al o his pa -
ne ’s a ec ion (2022, 570). “In hei eyes, Adam is no hing bu an anima e sex
doll who b ings sensuous sa is ac ion and w i es li e a y wo ks abou lo e bu will
ne e h ea en Cha lie’s posi ion o uin hei in ima e ela ionship, despi e he
ac ha nega i e e ec s do exis ” (Ibid.).
Decka d, he eplican hun e in Blade Runne : Do And oids D eam o
Elec ic Sheep? by Philip K. Dick ([1968] 1982), eels sympa hy o some epli-
can s. On he whole, he ound some o he emale eplican s a ac i e; he was
e en physically a ac ed o a ew o hem. His eason old him hey we e ma-
chines, bu his eelings esponded di e en ly. He hus ha bou ed g ea e eelings,
e en lo e, o he eplican Rachel, wi h whom he e en ually made lo e, he eby
“chea ing” on his dep essed wi e, since, as he hough , mos eplican s had mo e
i ali y and desi e o li e han his wi e.
A g ea measu e o an h opomo phising, which p og esses o lo e, is also
depic ed by au ho Annalee Newi z (2017) in he book Au onomous. Paladin is a
newly c ea ed comba obo who wo ks wi h a human colleague Eliasz. Eliasz
ini ially pe cei es Paladin as a male obo , which wo ies him, since he is inc eas-
ingly d awn owa d him emo ionally. The obo does no e en unde s and wha i
means o ha e a sex o o be a “ aggo ”, and why i should be classi ied as any sex
a all. Eliasz an h opomo phized he obo and conside ed he mos impo an
hing abou Paladin o be i s b ain, which in his iew, made Paladin a woman.
Paladin decides o decla e ha she is a woman, and Eliasz loses his inhibi ions
and makes lo e o he comba obo .
The pe o mance o a obo can su pass ha o a human o such an ex en
ha sex wi h a ( obo ic) aid will be p e e ed o e sex wi h a human. These ea s
also exis wi h po nog aphy, when a pa ne ceases o be su icien and will no

32
sa is y us o such an ex en ha his can lead o sexual dys unc ion. These conce ns
a e di icul o con i m, howe e , because as Dwuli and Rzymski (2019) s a e,
mo e esea ch is cu en ly needed o eliably demons a e a causal connec ion be-
ween wa ching po nog aphy and sexual dys unc ions. Though scenes in po no-
g aphic ma e ial may be mo e in e es ing o us han wi h a pa ne , in con as ,
hese scenes can be an inspi a ion o a ela ionship and can ha e a posi i e impac
on sexual sa is ac ion (Ibid., 7). The same can be ue o a obo ic sex oy, on
which we lea n o make a eal ela ionship special.
The e is an ongoing discussion in psycho he apy and sexual dys unc ion
he apy abou how sex obo s can be help ul. Eichenbe g, Khamis and Hübne
(2019, Table 4) lis he ollowing possible easons o using a sex obo in he apy:
o pa ien s wi h social anxie y; o people who do no ha e a pa ne and s ill
wan o lead a sex li e wi hou ha ing o eso o p os i u ion o lee ing acquain -
ances; ejacula io p aecox; e ec ile dys unc ion; psychoeduca ion; o gasm diso -
de s; aginismus; pa aphilias; sexual a e sion; igidi y; dyspa eunia; pa ien s
who wan o imp o e hei sexual ela ionship wi h hei pa ne ; sexual ma u i y
c isis; sex addic ion; gende iden i y diso de s.
Jealousy o machines and pa hological addic ion o hem
Wi h sex obo s, we conside ed whe he becoming d awn o one o hem may ha e
a nega i e impac on ou eal ela ionship wi h ou pa ne . Such an a achmen is
hus a only ic ional, and sexual desi e o a obo ha de elops in o lo e has
only been ound in he a o emen ioned ic ion. In Machine Like Me and People
Like You Mi anda spa ked jealousy in he pa ne when she wen o bed wi h an
and oid. I could ha e been wo se o he pa ne , had she el in a ua ed wi h he
and oid. Fic ion and ilms a e al eady esponding o he jealousy we may eel
owa ds machines. A model example is he ilm A. I. A i icial In elligence (2001).
He e we mee he and oid Da id, who is designed o look and beha e like a human
child. Da id is adop ed by Hen y and Monica and is in ended o be a eplacemen
o hei biological son Ma in, who is in a coma. He is mean o ul il a he apeu ic
unc ion o he be ea ed pa en s. Bu when hei biological son Ma in unexpec -
edly eco e s and e u ns home, ension s a s be ween him and Da id. Ma in
eels h ea ened and jealous o Da id because he senses ha his pa en s ha e a
ce ain a ec ion o him. Ma in lies o Da id, elling him ha his mo he will
lo e him mo e i he pe o ms a numbe o dange ous ac s and con inces him o
cu his mo he ’s hai wi h scisso s while she sleeps. He quickly p o es o be a
dange o hei son as well, when in an a i icially induced panic he g abs Ma in
33
and pulls him in o he swimming pool. The amily decides ha Da id is oo g ea
a isk, and Monica, a he han le him be des oyed, lea es him in he woods. The
ilm shows how jealousy and ea o he unknown can lead o has y decisions.
Jealousy owa ds an ope a ing sys em was well depic ed in he al eady
men ioned ilm He (2013). Theodo e expe ienced g ea g ie ; he lo e he el o
Saman ha was in ense, and e en mo e in ense was he eeling o disappoin men
and us a ion ha Saman ha was chea ing on him wi h a la ge numbe o o he
people. When wa ching he ilm, we may ge he imp ession ha Theodo e was
pa hologically a ached o a i ual pe son and he e e ed o his a achmen as
lo e.
Nea ly all he opics we ha e ouched on in his a icle a e e lec ed in he
ilm M3GAN (2022). A li le gi l named Cady is a elling wi h he pa en s in a
ca , bu hey c ash and he pa en s a e killed, so hei daugh e is aken in o ca e
by he aun Gemma. The aun is a wo kaholic; she has li le ime o aising a
child, because she is de eloping a new p o o ype o he M3GAN obo , which is
a ully au onomy obo . M3GAN lis ens o absolu ely e e y hing Cady ells he ;
she e en con ides in he abou he auma om he dea h o he pa en s. The obo
has he bes e bal esponses, which no human can p o ide, and she akes on he
ole o nanny and eache , because she o ces Cady, o example, o lush he oile ;
she is a good, i no he bes , iend, bu she is also a oy. A i s glance, she looks
like a obo doll, a oy, bu she is mo e han ha ; she is pa o he amily, she
ul ils he ole o a supe mo he who always has ime o he child. Aun Gemma
is g adually eplaced by he , as Cady p e e s o communica e wi h he obo and
espec s he wo ds mo e han hose o a human ca egi e . In he end, Cady no
longe e en wan s o alk o he aun ; she chooses o communica e only wi h
M3GAN, un il i is ob ious ha she is dependen on he , e using o admi ha
she is jus a machine. To make he ilm in e es ing, M3GAN, as a ial e sion,
begins o kill, i s a dog, hen people. When he aun suspec s M3GAN o a mu -
de and decides o swi ch i o , Cady goes in o i s o age. She hi s and kicks and
cu ses a o he s, c ies and e en physically a acks he aun . She is dependen on
he obo , unable o be away om i , and mus be wi h i e e ywhe e. As he psy-
chologis in he ilm says, she has o med an emo ional bond wi h he machine
ha can no longe be b oken.
In Isaac Asimo ’s sho s o y Robbie, ound in he sho s o y collec ion I,
Robo ([1950] 2004), a mu e obo ac s as an excellen companion o eigh -yea -
old Glo ia. The mo he is ne ous abou he machine, a aid ha he daugh e is
being wa ched by a pile o shee me al. Glo ia p e e s o play wi h he new obo
34
Robbie and neglec s he pee s, e en e using o socialise wi h hem. He ela ion-
ship owa ds Robbie g ows o he poin o pa hological dependence, causing he
pa en s o ake Robbie away om he and buy he a collie dog ins ead. Glo ia
begins o b eak down psychologically; she wi he s men ally and e en loses
weigh . He whole p oblem, as he a he also hough in he s o y, was ha she
conside ed Robbie a pe son and no a machine. Who knows ha i she we e o
unde s and ha Robbie is no hing mo e han a mess o s eel and coppe in he
o m o shee s and wi es wi h elec ici y i s juice o li e, hen pe haps he desi e
o him would weaken. He a he ul ima ely akes Glo ia o a obo ac o y and
shows he how Robbie is made, bu ha does no con ince he , and in he end he
pa en s e u n Robbie o he .
These s o ies cap u e e y well he pa hological ela ionship child en can
ha e o echnical in en ions. We can e en oday y a li le expe imen ; i we we e
o ake away a child’s elephone o ea him away om a compu e game, wha
kind o age will a ec him? Many pa en s ini ially hink ha i is only hei child
who is u ning in o li le maniac and hey a e us a ed by i , bu du ing discus-
sions wi h o he pa en s hey ind ou ha his is a uni e sal phenomenon.
These pa hological a achmen s o echnological de ices mos ly a ec
child en who ha e al eady been bo n in o he wo ld o he In e ne , compu e
games and obo s. Ricci e al. concluded om a s udy o 550 a icles ha , o
example, a highe equency o In e ne use is associa ed wi h a signi ican de-
c ease in e bal in elligence, mainly ela ed o language skills and concen a-
ion/a en ion abili ies, also o dec eased memo y pe o mance. The use o elec-
onic de ices a an ea ly age can lead child en o low le els o openness o expe-
iences, inc easing he le el o emo ional ins abili y, impulsi e o o he beha -
iou s ela ed o a en ion (2023, 6). Beha iou al addic ions o echnology ha e an
impac on social in e ac ion due o he ac ha addic ed child en and eenage s
do no de elop he p ope social skills equi ed o in e ac wi h hei pee s and
communi y in a unc ional way (Sando al 2019, 526). Addi ionally, i seems ha
companies employ pe suasi e echniques o p o i om use s, bu hey o e look
he e hical conce ns and long- e m impac s on use s, p io i ising ma ke p essu es
and p oduc demands ins ead (527). Some hing simila is a isk wi h social o-
bo s: “a) Could social obo s po en ially c ea e nega i e e ec s in use s simila o
hose seen in o he in e ac i e echnologies? b) Is i possible o de elop an addic-
ion o social obo s? c) How do we know, as use s, whe he obo s a e shaping
ou beha iou s o bene i ou well-being o manipula ing us?” (Ibid.).
35
Robo ic con ac wi h humans
T us ing a obo and allowing i o us you may no be a bad hing; qui e he
opposi e. I s an h opomo phic ai s a e as human as we ou sel es equi e om a
obo . T us owa ds a machine is also s eng hened by he ac ha i is subjec o
some legal sys em, and i s eliabili y is gua an eed di ec ly by he manu ac u e .
These machines con ain knowledge ha was pu in o hem by humans. The mo e
machines esemble humans, he mo e humani y, o a he human legacy, hey
should ha e. Fo example, a obo psycho he apis mus communica e like a hu-
man, because i communica es wi h and ad ises humans. The ac ha i does no
expe ience any eal emo ions may be a p oblem o some, bu o a pe son who
accep s a obo as a medical aid, his may no be an obs acle. Such a pe son will
allow himsel o be ad ised by a machine because i con ains he bes p o essional
knowledge ha lesh-and-blood expe s ha e pu in o i . The machine can also
p ocess his acqui ed knowledge as e , espond o a p oblem ins an ly, and pos-
sibly e en ad ise mo e e ec i ely han a human being. Since he machine is con-
s an ly lea ning, i is able o assess he a ailable in o ma ion and o e he bes
solu ion o a gi en con ex , wi hin he amewo k o he knowledge acqui ed.
Pe haps no oday, bu likely in he no - oo-dis an u u e, i will o e be e solu-
ions han a human.
No e e yone is able sha e his op imism abou he inc easing obo isa ion,
pa icula ly in he case o social obo s. A special chap e ha is cu en ly analysed
equen ly is he so-called black box p oblem. This issue leads o conside a ions
abou he expansion o bioe hical p inciples o obo s. To he ou p inciples o -
mula ed by Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Child ess ([2009] 2019) – au onomy,
nonmale icence, bene icence and jus ice – a i h was added, explicabili y (Flo idi
e al. 2018). The black box p oblem is ha a machine can o e ad ice and come
o a conclusion, bu we do no know he pa h by which i eached he conclusion:
we only know he inpu and ou pu , bu wha is going on inside emains unclea .
The e o e, some philosophe s wa n o he isk o unc i ically accep ing ou pu s
gene a ed by machines and exp ess a ce ain deg ee o suspicion owa ds hem.
I would also like o poin ou ha he exis ence o a black box i sel gi es
he imp ession ha a machine is au onomous, because i can beha e unp edic a-
bly, much like a human. Jus as we canno see in o a human’s head, we also canno
di ec ly see in o he “head” o a machine. A human being himsel is o en unable
o explain why he beha ed in a ce ain way in a gi en si ua ion, and no only ha ,
bu why he came o such o such solu ions, why he has such belie s and desi es,
moods and dep ession. The e y pa h o ou own hinking is o en hidden om
42
an Kemenade, Ma go A. M., Elly A. Konijn, and Johan F. Hoo n. 2021. “Can We Lea e Ca e
o Robo s? An Explo a i e In es iga ion o Mo al E alua ions o Ca e P o essionals Rega ding
Heal hca e Robo s.” COJ Robo ics & A i icial In elligence 1, 3. DOI:10.31031/COJRA.2021.
01.000514.
on B aun, Joachim. 2021. “Robo ics and AI in he Se ice o Humani y.” In Robo ics, AI, and
Humani y, ed. by Joachim on B aun, Ma ga e S. A che , G ego y M. Reichbe g, and Ma celo
Sánchez So ondo, 1–17. Cham: Sp inge . DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-3-030-54173-6_1.
Wilson, Daniel H. 2011. Robocalypse. New Yo k: Doubleday.

43
Beyond Gene ic Enhancemen in Kazuo Ishigu o’s Kla a and
he Sun
Adam Šk o an
Abs ac : This s udy ocuses on Kla a and he Sun (2021) by Kazuo Ishigu o, a no el ha has
ecei ed conside able a en ion o i s depic ion o a i icial beings bu less so o i s po ayal
o gene ic modi ica ion. While exis ing in e p e a ions o en emphasize i s cau iona y one, his
s udy seeks o b oaden he no el’s in e p e i e amewo k by examining enhancemen h ough
a bioe hical lens. D awing on heo e ical pe spec i es om bioe hics schola s, he s udy ex-
plo es how he na a i e ambigui y in Kla a and he Sun in i es he eade o e lec on he
emo ional, mo al, and social implica ions o human enhancemen . In doing so, I sugges posi-
ioning he no el as a space whe e he bioe hical issues o echnological p og ess a e no e-
sol ed bu open o specula ion.
Keywo ds: Gene ic enhancemen . Au onomy. Emo ional inequali y. Social consequences.
In oduc ion
While adical in e en ions designed o al e human capabili ies we e once e-
s ic ed o he domain o science ic ion, ad ances in biomedicine ha e ans-
o med specula i e hemes in o p essing conce ns o bo h li e a y and scien i ic
inqui y. Li e a y na a i e has long se ed as a space in which eme ging scien i ic
de elopmen s a e no only imagined bu also explo ed in e ms o hei b oade
human signi icance. As e hics schola s Be Go dijn and Henk en Ha e (2018)
obse e, ic ion con ibu es o e lec ions on he e hical ensions su ounding ech-
nological de elopmen no h ough abs ac analysis, as heo e ical discou se o -
en does, bu h ough specula i e po ayal o he unce ain consequences such
ad ancemen s may b ing. This s udy ocuses on Kazuo Ishigu o’s no el Kla a
and he Sun (2021), which has a ac ed conside able schola ly in e es o i s po -
ayal o a i icial beings designed o se e as companions o gene ically enhanced
humans (e.g., Hosu i 2021; Li and Eddebo 2023; Naq i 2025). Fewe in e p e a-
ions, howe e , engage wi h he no el’s depic ion o gene ic modi ica ion, and
hose ha do end o echo he cau iona y one Ishigu o himsel exp essed in in e -
iews su ounding he no el’s elease (e.g., Na imani Cha an 2023). Ra he han
dispu ing exis ing in e p e a ions, I aim o b oaden he no el’s in e p e i e ame-
wo k by examining he heme o gene ic modi ica ion h ough a bioe hical pe -
spec i e. D awing on selec ed wo ks on human enhancemen (e.g., Aga 2004;
44
Sandel 2007; Sa ulescu 2001), he analysis b ings o wa d addi ional bioe hical
conce ns and in e p e i e possibili ies ha a ise om he no el’s agmen ed and
incomple e po ayal o he enhancemen p ocess. I a gue ha by lea ing key as-
pec s o gene ic modi ica ion unexplained, Ishigu o in i es a eade -o ien ed
mode o engagemen , p omp ing ac i e specula ion and e hical e lec ion on he
un esol ed ensions wi hin he na a i e.
Li e a y explo a ions o al e ed human capabili ies and bodily ans o -
ma ion eme ged well be o e he de elopmen o mode n gene ics. These na a-
i es ypically imagined in e en ions no a he le el o he human species as a
whole, bu a he le el o indi idual bodies, ocusing on ana omical, su gical, o
physiological manipula ion. Such depic ions we e equen ly en angled wi h cul-
u al anxie ies abou scien i ic in usion in o bodily au onomy. A case in poin is
H. G. Wells’s The Island o Doc o Mo eau (1896), which po ays he su gical
ans o ma ion o animals in o quasi-human hyb ids h ough i isec ion. While
he no el does no en ision al e ing he human species i sel , i d ama izes bodily
in e en ion – a mo i ha , as Vic o ian li e a u e schola Mason Ha is (2002)
no es, e lec s con empo a y deba es in la e nine een h-cen u y B i ain o e Da -
winian e olu ion and public opposi ion o animal expe imen a ion. In pa allel wi h
li e a y imaginings, he scien i ic unde s andings o biological con ol we e be-
ginning o ake shape. Al hough G ego Mendel, o en ega ded as he a he o
mode n gene ics, had published his indings on gene ic ai s in he 1860s, hey
emained la gely unknown un il hei edisco e y in 1900 (Aud oue 1955). As he
Ame ican his o ian Ga land E. Allen (2003) no es, he legacy o Mendel’s s udies
con inues o in luence con empo a y concep ions o mode n gene ics and he basis
o a ge ed gene ic in e en ions.
A mo e sys ema ic ision o biological con ol appea ed la e wi h J. B. S.
Haldane’s essay Daedalus; o , Science and he Fu u e (1924), in which he B i ish
gene icis specula ed abou di ec ed mu a ion and child en bo n om a i icial
wombs. Like Wells, Haldane ecognized ha such in e en ions would p o oke
s ong eac ions, desc ibing he public’s likely esponse as mo al ou age agains
wha would be seen as “pe e sion” (1924, 44). In e lec ing on Haldane’s ision,
B i ish science w i e Philip Ball (2013) iews i as a key in luence on Aldous
Huxley’s B a e New Wo ld (1932), depic ing a cas e-based socie y buil on a i i-
cial ep oduc ion and he unease su ounding scien i ic mas e y o e li e. In con-
as o his unease, a g owing e o ook shape o os e public accep ance o
p og ess – an e o exempli ied by igu es such as Haldane and Aldous’s b o he
Julian Huxley, one o he leading p oponen s o scien i ic humanism in he mid-
45
wen ie h cen u y, who ad oca ed o he accessibili y o scien i ic knowledge and
emphasized i s po en ial o imp o e socie y (Congdon 2011).
Building on he ension be ween public anxie y and scien i ic op imism, he
decades ha ollowed saw gene ics eme ge as a celeb a ed and con o e sial ield.
Majo b eak h oughs in molecula biology we e me wi h bo h acclaim and cau-
ion. In 1972, Paul Be g, S anley Cohen, and He be Boye de eloped ecombi-
nan DNA echniques, enabling genes om one o ganism o be inse ed in o an-
o he – an ad ance ha exci ed biologis s and would la e ea n Be g he Nobel
P ize (Amsen 2025). Howe e , g owing conce n o e po en ial isks led scien is s
in 1974 o olun a ily pause such esea ch. The mo a o ium was li ed a e he
1975 Asiloma Con e ence, whe e expe s es ablished ounda ional guidelines o
he sa e p ac ice o gene ic enginee ing (Ibid.). These dynamics shaped no only
scien i ic bu also li e a y discou se. The Encyclopedia o Science Fic ion (Clu e
e al. 2021) maps he de elopmen o gene ic enginee ing as a ecu ing heme in
li e a u e, aligning i wi h key ad ancemen s in bio echnology. Following his ac-
coun , he 1950s a e ma ked by he disco e y o DNA’s double-helix s uc u e,
which laid he g oundwo k o molecula biology and a ge ed gene manipula ion
– a de elopmen e lec ed in nume ous li e a y wo ks o he ime, as no ed in he
Encyclopedia, including James Blish’s The Seedling S a s (1957), which imagines
humans gene ically al e ed o su i e in he hos ile en i onmen s o space. In he
1970s, he ad en o ecombinan DNA echniques made i possible o cu and
splice genes ac oss species; his scien i ic miles one would la e be explo ed in
G eg Bea ’s Blood Music (1985), which en isions biological cells capable o e-
w i ing hei own gene ic code and e ol ing in o sen ien en i ies. By he 1990s,
cloning, gene he apy, and emb yo esea ch had en e ed mains eam discou se,
p omp ing bo h egula o y deba es and specula i e e lec ion – as seen, o in-
s ance, in Nancy K ess’s Begga s in Spain (1993) and i s sequels, which depic a
socie y eshaped by gene ic modi ica ions pu chased by weal hy pa en s o hei
child en (Clu e e al. 2021).
One o he mos signi ican ecen de elopmen s in he ield o gene ic en-
ginee ing is he eme gence o CRISPR/Cas9 – a gene-edi ing echnology ha has
ans o med he landscape o molecula biology. As biochemis I ina Gos imskaya
explains, al hough CRISPR was o mally in oduced in 2012, i s scien i ic
g oundwo k had been laid o e he cou se o se e al decades. Ea lie disco e ies,
such as he iden i ica ion o he gene ic code, laid he ounda ion, e en hough he
mechanisms o gene unc ion emained poo ly unde s ood (Gos imskaya 2022).
The e en ual eme gence o CRISPR has no been jus a scien i ic miles one –
46
ecognized wi h he Nobel P ize in Chemis y in 2020 – bu also a p ac ical b eak-
h ough, as i allows o p ecise and cos -e ec i e modi ica ions o DNA. Like
biomedical in e en ions p e iously men ioned, such as i isec ion in The Island
o Doc o Mo eau o a i icial ep oduc ion in B a e New Wo ld, CRISPR has
p o oked public discom o (Goodyea 2023). Ye hese ea lie examples show
ha once- ea ed echniques may come o be g adually accep ed, esul ing in a
social landscape ma ked by bo h e hical unease and cau ious endo semen .
As eal-wo ld echnologies began o ca ch up wi h ea lie science ic ion,
gene ic enhancemen began o appea in ic ion no as a specula i e opic, bu as
a logical ex ension o con empo a y bio echnology. Such na a i es ypically shi
ocus away om echnical de ail o enhancemen and owa d i s pe sonal and so-
cial implica ions. As Eichmeie e al. show in hei s udy o public esponses o
human genome edi ing, a en ion o science ic ion is signi ican ly associa ed wi h
how people pe cei e bo h he isks and bene i s o he echnology, sugges ing ha
ic ion plays a ole in shaping e hical awa eness as hese de elopmen s en e he
cul u al mains eam (Eichmeie e al. 2023). These conce ns e lec he bio-con-
se a i e side o he deba e wi hin con empo a y bioe hics, s anding in con as o
anshumanis op imism abou human enhancemen .
The desi e o imp o e
Acco ding o Nick Bos om (2005), he desi e o enhance one’s s anda d o li ing
– whe he o onesel , one’s amily, o u u e gene a ions – has long been an es-
sen ial ai o human beha io . Bos om ames his d i e as an e olu iona ily
g ounded impulse o imp o e and oo s his a gumen in Enligh enmen p og es-
si ism and u ili a ian e hics: i echnology can expand human capaci ies and e-
duce su e ing, hen con inuing his ajec o y is no only na u al bu also mo ally
jus i ied (2005). The d i e o enhancemen ex ends ac oss in a a ie y o a eas,
including heal h, educa ion, socio-economic s a us, o psychological well-being.
T adi ionally, imp o emen s in hese domains a e pu sued h ough g adual, e o -
based measu es, such as balanced nu i ion, exe cise, educa ion, and p o essional
g ow h, jus o name a ew. Howe e , he ou comes o he esul s o hese endea -
o s a e no always p opo ional o he ime and e o in es ed (Bos om 2005). In
an inc easingly compe i i e en i onmen , he pu sui o enhancemen is o en
shaped no only by in insic aspi a ions bu also by ex e nal p essu es. In he ein
o Deleuze’s no ion o socie ies p omo ing condi ions in which indi iduals a e
compelled o ou pe o m one ano he (1992, 4–5) – gene a ing i al y in aca-
demic, p o essional, o a hle ic sphe es – he appeal o accele a ed, gua an eed,
47
and low-e o imp o emen g ows s onge . Ye e o s o bypass na u al limi a-
ions equen ly aise e hical conce ns among bioe hicis s, medical p ac i ione s,
lawmake s, and he b oade public. Biomedical in e en ions, such as pe o -
mance-enhancing d ugs o o -label pha maceu ical use, may imp o e ou comes
bu aise conce ns ega ding ai ness o au hen ici y. While such in e en ions a e
o en dismissed as unna u al, mo e p essing issues include po en ial heal h isks
and he slippe y slope o escala ing eliance on inc easingly ex eme o ms o en-
hancemen .
Gene ic enginee ing echnologies in ensi y hese conce ns. Unlike pha ma-
ceu ical enhancemen s, hey in e ene a he le el o he genome, wi h he po en-
ial o al e ai s pe manen ly. I is p ecisely his i e e sibili y – and i s po en ial
o a ec no jus indi iduals bu u u e gene a ions – ha p omp s (bio)e hical
e lec ion (Rubeis and S ege 2018). Ques ions a ise abou whe he such modi i-
ca ions should be unde aken a all, and i so, based on wha c i e ia. The bioe h-
ical deba e a ound gene ic modi ica ion ypically dis inguishes be ween wo main
pu poses: gene he apy and gene ic enhancemen . I is wo h no ing, howe e , ha
anshumanis s challenge he dis inc ion be ween enhancemen and he apy by us-
ing examples o con en ional medical p ocedu es, such as accina ion, ha a e
ha d o clea ly classi y (Bos om and Roache 2007). Gene he apy ul ills he a-
di ional goals o medicine – o educe su e ing and es o e heal h – and is o en
seen as no only bene icial bu also mo ally necessa y (Habe mas 2003). By con-
as , gene ic enhancemen aises mo e e hical conce ns as i goes beyond ea -
men and in ol es al e ing human ai s beyond hei na u al ange. Gene he a-
pies, ypically amed as medical necessi ies, seek o co ec gene ic diso de s,
mi iga e li e- h ea ening condi ions, o p e en he onse o debili a ing diseases.
Ye , de ining wha cons i u es a “no mal” human condi ion emains a pe sis en
philosophical and bioe hical challenge – wha is conside ed no mal is shaped as
much by scien i ic unde s anding as by cul u al and his o ical pe spec i es (F ied-
mann and Roblin 1972). In e en ions classi ied as he apy a e gene ally accep ed
unde he p inciple o medical necessi y. Howe e , when gene ic enginee ing ex-
ends beyond es o ing adequa e human heal h, capaci ies, and pe o mance and
mo es owa d enhancing hem, bioe hical conce ns become mo e p onounced.
Enhancemen s ha seek o e ine in elligence, ampli y physical endu ance, o al-
e aes he ic cha ac e is ics in oduce unse ling ques ions abou ai ness, access,
and he e y na u e o human iden i y. I we possess he abili y o exceed na u al
biological limi s, do we isk ede ining wha i means o be human?

48
Fo he pu pose o his s udy, i is also impo an o dis inguish be ween
ge mline and soma ic edi ing. Soma ic edi ing a ec s only he indi idual being
ea ed and has no impac on hei o sp ing. Ge mline edi ing, howe e , changes
he DNA o ep oduc i e cells o ea ly emb yos, meaning ha he changes can be
passed on o nex gene a ions (Sýko a 2015). Di e en ia ing be ween he apy and
enhancemen is no s aigh o wa d, and he concep o human na u e o human
essence emains a subjec o in e p e a ion in bioe hical discou se. I is gene ic
enhancemen , howe e , ha has ecei ed he mos a en ion in ic ional na a i es,
due o i s i e e sibili y and i s po en ial o a ec u u e gene a ions – a ocus ha
mi o s ends in bioe hics, whe e, as A i Schick (2024) no es, he wo d “enhance-
men ” eme ged in he mid-1990s and o e ook “gene ic enginee ing” en i ely in
he ollowing decade.
Al hough his s udy ocuses on gene ic enhancemen o he child en in
Kla a and he Sun, his heme does no domina e he no el’s na a i e; ins ead,
he ocus is on Kla a, an A i icial F iend designed o se e as a companion o
uppe -class child en. Kla a is he no el’s na a o , bu due o he limi a ions o he
p og amming and design, he pe cep ual, in e p e i e, and desc ip i e abili ies a e
se e ely cons ained. She pe cei es he wo ld wi h a childlike innocence and na-
i e y which esul s in a na a i e oice ha is bo h emo ionally cap i a ing and
epis emically un eliable. As Kla a canno ully comp ehend he e en s a ound he ,
eade s mus ac i ely in e p e and deciphe hem. This na a i e s a egy enables
Ishigu o o a oid explici explana ions, including hose ela ed o e hically and
scien i ically complex opics such as gene ic enhancemen . As a esul , he en-
hancemen p ocedu e is ne e di ec ly desc ibed and is only e e ed o as “li -
ing.” Child en who ha e unde gone he p ocedu e a e called “li ed,” wi h he
echnical e m “gene edi ing” appea ing only once in he en i e ex (Ishigu o
2021, 205). The s o y e ol es a ound Josie, a eenage gi l who has been li ed,
and he mo he Ch issie, who has op ed o he p ocedu e in hopes o secu ing
Josie’s u u e. Josie’s a he , by con as , is mo e skep ical o enhancemen , and
he ension be ween hei iews e lec s b oade socie al di isions in a i udes o-
wa ds gene ic modi ica ion. Rick, Josie’s close iend who has no been li ed,
ep esen s he ma ginalized pe spec i e o non-enhanced indi iduals, se ing as a
coun e poin o he social ad an ages a o ded o he li ed. The li ed child en a e
homeschooled and spend much o hei ime in domes ic se ings alongside hei
A i icial F iends, so hey p ima ily engage wi h hei pee s du ing o ganized in-
e ac ion mee ings designed o subs i u e social en i onmen s.
49
While humanoids a e cen al o he plo and domina e mos in e p e a ions
o he no el (e.g., Hosu i 2021; Li and Eddebo 2023; Naq i 2025), he heme o
gene ic enhancemen emains a signi ican , hough less e iden , elemen . Much
o his schola ship has ocused on Kla a and he Sun as a e lec ion on human-
machine ela ionships, a i icial consciousness, and he limi s o pe sonhood.
These issues a e highly ele an in he con ex o apid g ow h o a i icial in elli-
gence. While Kla a and he Sun is o en ega ded as a cau iona y ale in hese
eadings, such in e p e a ions mi o Ishigu o’s own public conce ns abou he so-
cie al consequences o gene edi ing. In a 2016 in e iew wi h The Gua dian, he
exp essed conce n ha he social ans o ma ions b ough abou by gene edi ing
echnologies could unde mine co e human alues (Ishigu o 2016). The p esen
analysis ocuses on how he no el’s agmen ed po ayal o enhancemen esis s
a ixed e hical s ance. By lea ing he mechanics and consequences o he li ing
p ocedu e la gely unspeci ied, he no el p o ides a specula i e space in which he
eade is in i ed o c i ically engage wi h he mo al ensions embedded in he cha -
ac e s’ choices and ci cums ances.
To enhance o no o enhance?
Ishigu o lea es i unclea exac ly when and how he gene ic enhancemen p ocess
akes place, keeping bo h he iming and mechanics o he p ocedu e implici and
unexplained. I is use ul o conside es ablished indings in neu oscience, as sum-
ma ized by Sand a Acke man in Disco e ing he B ain (1992, 88), which indica e
ha a e abou 18 mon hs o age, he o ganiza ion o cell ypes in o dis inc b ain
egions is la gely comple e. This de elopmen al imeline has led some, such as
science w i e Ricki Lewis (2021), o sugges ha he li ing p ocedu e in Kla a
and he Sun may ake place p io o bi h, po en ially in ol ing in i o e iliza-
ion (IVF). Lewis (2021) suppo s his iew by d awing on he p e ious w i ings
abou he use o gene ic selec ion and modi ica ion o emb yos c ea ed h ough
IVF. O he in e p e a ions expand he possible window o gene ic modi ica ion.
One such iew is pu o wa d by Jen Willows (2021), an edi o specializing in
gene ics, who sugges s ha li ing could occu du ing a speci ic de elopmen al
s age ollowing bi h, e en hough she conside s ha op ion scien i ically inaccu-
a e. The di e ing in e p e a ions o e ed by Lewis and Willows poin o he am-
bigui y su ounding he iming and mechanics o he li ing p ocedu e. Coming
om ou side li e a y s udies, hei pe spec i es d aw a en ion no o any de ini-
i e answe , bu o he na a i e gaps ha Ishigu o delibe a ely lea es open.
50
Pa en al in ol emen in he li ing p ocess begins wi h a ques ion on
which hei child’s u u e hinges: o enhance o no o enhance. This ques ion is
condi ioned by each amily’s economic backg ound, as gene ic enhancemen is
depic ed as a cos ly p ocedu e a ailable mainly o uppe -class amilies. Al hough
he speci ics o he li ing p ocedu e emain ague, i s e ec s a e clea : i inc eases
child en’s cogni i e capaci y, g an ing hem access o highe educa ion and
b oade li e oppo uni ies (Ishigu o 2021, 145–146). Wha u ns he decision in o
a dilemma is he ac ha gene ic enhancemen in he no el ca ies se ious heal h
isks. Pa en s who op o li ing expose hei child en o he possibili y o se e e
heal h complica ions, which may ul ima ely esul in dea h. I pa en s choose no
o enhance, howe e , hey limi hei child’s u u e socioeconomic oppo uni ies
and access o ma e ial secu i y, e ec i ely placing hem a a s uc u al disad-
an age om an ea ly age.
Many accoun s in he bioe hical li e a u e on gene ic enhancemen ia e-
p oduc i e echnology ea he sa e y o he p ocedu e as a necessa y p esuppo-
si ion, wi hou which meaning ul bioe hical analysis canno p oceed (e.g., Bu-
chanan e al. 2000; DeG azia 2016). Wi hin his amewo k, he p o ec ion o he
child – e en one no ye concei ed – akes p ecedence o e ull pa en al au on-
omy, in line wi h he p inciple o non-male icence, which places a mo al obliga-
ion on pa en s and medical ins i u ions o a oid causing ha m o he child. In
Kla a and he Sun, howe e , his no ma i e p inciple is en i ely absen . Ishigu o
omi s such a commi men o sa egua ding by po aying a ee- o -all labo a o y
landscape in which gene ically enhanced child en a e concei ed wi hou ins i u-
ional o e sigh . In he con ex o he li ing p ocedu e, he omission eme ges in
wo espec s. One conce ns he lack o de ail abou he p ocedu e i sel , as Ishi-
gu o ne e speci ies when li ing akes place; his ambigui y in i es specula ion
abou whe he enhancemen occu s be o e bi h, he eby shi ing a en ion o he
ole o pa en s and medical ins i u ions (Lewis 2021; Willows 2021). The o he
omission lies in he absence o any pa en al o ins i u ional p ac ices aimed a
p e en ing ha m o he child. This bioe hical acuum has encou aged c i ical li -
e a y eadings ha in e oga e un egula ed bio echnological p ac ices and he
e asu e o p o ec i e measu es (Na imani Cha an 2023; Sü Güngö 2022).
By con as , human genome edi ing in p esen -day biomedical p ac ice is
subjec o legal and e hical o e sigh ac oss many coun ies. As ou lined in The
CRISPR Jou nal (Baylis e al. 2020), mos na ional policies ei he p ohibi o
s ic ly egula e he i able genome edi ing. Fo example, he O iedo Con en ion –
adop ed by he Council o Eu ope – bans ge mline modi ica ion unless i is o
51
p e en i e, diagnos ic, o he apeu ic pu poses. In he Uni ed S a es, ede al law
does no explici ly ban ge mline edi ing, bu he Food and D ug Adminis a ion is
p ohibi ed om e iewing p oposals ha in ol e gene ically modi ied emb yos,
e ec i ely p e en ing i s clinical use (Baylis e al. 2020). These egula ions we e
u he ein o ced ollowing he in e na ional backlash agains wha is ega ded as
he i s known case o genome edi ing in humans, conduc ed by Chinese scien is
He Jiankui in 2018. His wo k, which in ol ed helping HIV-posi i e indi iduals
wi h e ili y issues, included in i o e iliza ion and ge mline edi ing wi hou
medical necessi y o e hical o e sigh . The case, ca ied ou in de iance o in e -
na ional no ms and wi hou anspa ency, spa ked global condemna ion and led o
enewed calls o a mo a o ium on human ge mline genome edi ing (G eely
2019). Much o he conce n su ounding un egula ed gene edi ing a ises om he
isk ha e en p ecisely a ge ed echnologies like CRISPR can cause unin ended
gene ic changes. So-called “unin ended genome edi ing” has been ound “in ap-
p oxima ely 16 % o he human emb yo cells” (Alanis-Loba o e al. 2021). While
un egula ed scien i ic esea ch was hal ed and expec ed o emain wi hin s ic
e hical bounda ies, ic ional li e a y depic ions ha e been ee o explo e wha lies
beyond hose limi s.
Can he li ed child en in Kla a and he Sun be meaning ully compa ed o
he gene-edi ed babies bo n as a esul o Jiankui’s expe imen ? In he la e case,
he genome edi ing was na owly a ge ed, wi h he aim o making he child en
esis an o HIV by disabling a speci ic gene, and he p ocedu e was ca ied ou
wi h he explici in en ion o achie ing ha ou come. By con as , he enhance-
men p ocess in Ishigu o’s no el is b oad and nonspeci ic. The pa en s exe cise
no con ol o e which cogni i e ai s a e modi ied, no o wha ex en . All li ed
child en appea o ecei e he same ype o b oad enhancemen , which esul s in
a no able beha io al and psychological uni o mi y – a pa e n explo ed u he in
he ollowing sec ion. The compa ison highligh s a key dis inc ion: while eal-
wo ld ge mline edi ing aises conce ns because o i s speci ici y, among o he ac-
o s, Ishigu o’s depic ion o li ing is ma ked by i s opaci y and o e s anda diza-
ion.
Pa en al decision-making
While Ishigu o emphasizes – o a he educes – he complex deba e su ounding
gene ic enhancemen p ima ily o he h ea o illness o dea h, i is wo h no ing
ha se e al in e p e a ions o Kla a and he Sun also emphasize conce ns abou
inequali y, especially he di ide be ween li ed and non-li ed child en (e.g.,
58
he and begins o communica e his g owing conce n abou Josie, especially he
de eloping gap be ween hem caused by he ac ha she is li ed and he is no .
Despi e being he same age, hei li es begin o mo e in di e en di ec ions in
ways ha Rick conside s unna u al and o ced. Josie’s li e is closely managed and
cons ained, while Rick, om a lowe -income household, expe iences g ea e
eedom. Rega dless o he class di e ence, he bond be ween Josie and Rick is
shown as s ong and since e – ye i is hei na u alness ha becomes s ained as
he s a us gap be ween hem g adually widens.
Rick and his mo he ep esen hose excluded om he ad an ages a o ded
by li ing. In he no el, gene ic enhancemen is linked o educa ional access and
u u e oppo uni y. As Jinming Chen and Xiaohui Liang obse e, “[ ]his educa-
ional inequali y e lec s he p e ailing me i oc a ic alues, which p io i ize me i
and mi iga e ea s o ailu e, as echnology becomes a c i ical asse o child en o
compe e agains one o he ” (2024, 184). Such a conce n e lec s b oade eal-
wo ld discussions abou gene edi ing, which, like li ing in he no el, isks being
exploi ed by he weal hy. As Wal e Isaacson wa ns, socie ies mus gua d “agains
allowing i o be pa o a ee-ma ke bazaa whe e he ich can buy he bes genes
and ing ain hem in o hei amilies” (2021, 389). Tha dynamic is cen al o Kla a
and he Sun, whe e gene ic enhancemen becomes s anda d among he eli e; hose
who a e le ou a e excluded no necessa ily by choice, bu because o socio-
economic ba ie s.
A he indi idual le el, he de e io a ing o Rick and Josie’s ela ionship can
be unde s ood h ough he eelings o in e io i y and dis ess expe ienced by he
non-enhanced indi iduals. As bioe hics schola Robe Spa ow (2019, 2) a gues,
such emo ions a e likely psychosocial consequences o coexis ence be ween en-
hanced and non-enhanced g oups, pa icula ly when enhancemen echnologies
begin o de ine social and cogni i e supe io i y. Spa ow sugges s ha in such
con ex s, non-enhanced indi iduals may come o see hemsel es as ou da ed o
inadequa e, wi h hese eelings oo ed in expe iences o social exclusion. The
emo ional di ide be ween Josie and Rick becomes appa en as Josie inc easingly
in eg a es in o he social wo ld o he li ed pee s. Du ing one exchange, she ques-
ions Rick’s eluc ance o pu sue he same pa h: “Bu you’ e sma e han any o
he o he unli eds ying o ge in. So why won’ you go o i ? I’ll ell you. I ’s
because you mom wan s you o s ay wi h he o e e . She doesn’ wan you going
ou he e and u ning in o a eal adul ” (2021, 146). He one is sha p and accu-
sa o y, sugges ing ha she has al eady abso bed he belie ha success depends
on being li ed and keeping up wi h he demands o he enhanced communi y.

59
Momen s such as his exempli y wha Fukuyama exp esses his conce ns o e : ha
gene ic enhancemen may des oy he ounda ion o mo al solida i y, esul ing in
such a social o de in which indi iduals a e no longe iewed as equals, bu as
inhe en ly anked (2002, 9–10).
Josie’s a i ude owa d Rick becomes e en clea e when she wonde s,
“[H]ow’s his going o wo k? Ou plan, I mean. How’s i going o wo k i I’ e go
socie y and you ha en’ ?” (2021, 146) He ques ion e eals an impo an u n in
pe spec i e: Josie now conside s he sel o belong o “socie y” – he wo ld o he
li ed and socially accep ed – while placing Rick ou side o i . Daniel L. Tobey
sees a majo isk in he o ma ion o such quie hie a chies s emming om gene ic
enhancemen – hie a chies ha begin wi h in e nal belie s, no wi h policy o law
(2003, 83); Josie does no en i ely dismiss Rick, bu she begins o iew his u u e
as undamen ally incompa ible wi h wha she belie es socie y demands. As Spa -
ow (2019, 10) u he wa ns, i enhancemen echnologies con inue o ad ance,
obsolescence will ex end o ea lie gene a ions o enhanced indi iduals whose
enhancemen s become ou da ed. Such a s a i ica ion would agmen he li ed
communi y i sel , p oducing new hie a chies and emo ional disconnec ion be-
ween hose di e en ly enhanced. Benea h he mo e p ominen heme o socio-
economic inequali y s eng hened by he li ing p ocedu e, he e appea s o be a
sub le bu mo e pe sonal up u e ha is d i en by in e nalized social dis inc ion.
Suppo ed by bioe hical conce ns, he p esen ed analysis sugges s ha gene ic en-
hancemen in Kla a and he Sun ed aws he limi s o belonging in ways ha cause
emo ional aliena ion and can also weaken e en endu ing human ela ionships.
The empa hy de ici
Al hough he li ed child en possess enhanced cogni i e abili ies, hei empa hy
and emo ional in elligence appea unde de eloped. While he li ing p ocedu e is
ne e explici ly linked o his emo ional impai men , he no el does epea edly
e eal an ob ious gap be ween he child en’s in ellec ual ad ancemen and hei
limi ed empa hy. One con ibu ing ac o could be hei highly con olled upb ing-
ing; being homeschooled and mos ly in e ac ing wi h pee s in s uc u ed g oup
se ings o e s li le possibili y o genuine emo ional de elopmen . Ano he pos-
sible explana ion, howe e , lies in he enhancemen p ocess i sel . As scien i ic
s udies on CRISPR and o he gene-edi ing echniques ha e shown, a emp s o
modi y complex ai s like in elligence can esul in unin ended changes in mul i-
ples ai s due o he in e dependen na u e o genes (Vissche e al. 2025). In ac ,
he so-called “o - a ge mu a ions” a e no specula i e; psychia ic genomics
60
esea ch u he suppo s his conce n, indica ing a link be ween ce ain cogni i e
ai s and inc eased isk o men al heal h condi ions (MacCabe e al. 2018).
4
The imbalance be ween he child en’s enhanced cogni i e abili ies and hei
limi ed empa hy is pa icula ly e iden du ing one o he in e ac ion mee ings –
an episode ha dese es o be examined in g ea e de ail. As Koso is (2021) ob-
se es, Rick begins o iden i y wi h Kla a a e seeing he subjec ed o he same
c uel y he expe iences, ye he na u e o hei mis ea men a ies. Rick is mocked
by a g oup o li ed gi ls who ask him i ial and i i a ing ques ions and laugh a
his esponses (2021, 82–84). They almos ega d him as in e io – one gi l e en
ema ks ha i “mus be wei d o him” (2021, 81) o be he only non-li ed p esen
a he mee ing – bu hey s ill alk o him and exp ess some in e es in his li e,
e en i i migh no be genuine. Rick is seen as socially in e io , bu s ill human.
Kla a, howe e , is no ea ed in a humane way a all. Al hough, due o he na a-
ion, inne monologue, and beha io , she is o en ca ego ized as “innocen ” (Un-
kel 2023), he li ed boys igno e he p esence, speak abou he ins ead o o he ,
and only in e ac wi h he when hey need he o pe o m a ask. A one poin , one
o he li ed boys ecommends hey “ h ow he o e ” o “ es he coo dina ion”
(2021, 86).
Kla a’s mis ea men shows a kind o exclusion based on he non-human
na u e, which lacks a speci ic quali y and causes ce ain indi iduals o ea he as
an inanima e objec . Wha exac ly dis inguishes humans om animals o ma-
chines has been he subjec o bioe hical and philosophical deba e o decades.
Because his di e ence canno be ully explained by ai s like consciousness,
sen ience, agency, o emo ional capaci y, Fukuyama e e s o he mys e ious qual-
i y, which gi es humans hei digni y, as “Fac o X” (2002, 149–150). While Rick
is looked down on, Kla a is due o he missing Fac o X denied mo al ecogni ion
al oge he . This in e ac ion e eals a laye ed sys em o exclusion – a hie a chy
wi hin he hie a chy. Non-li ed indi iduals a e ma ginalized by hei enhanced
pee s, ye A i icial F iends, who all en i ely ou side he ca ego y o he human,
a e denied mo al ecogni ion al oge he . Technological de elopmen s hus p o-
duce s a i ica ion a bo h ends o he social spec um: a he op, hey ele a e
gene ically modi ied indi iduals abo e hei non-enhanced coun e pa s; a he
bo om, hey elega e humanoid beings o a s a us beyond he e hical bounda ies.
4
MacCabe e al. (2018) examine he sha ed gene ic basis be ween ai s associa ed wi h high cogni i e
o c ea i e abili y and ulne abili y o psychia ic condi ions. Thei esea ch iden i ies polygenic o e -
laps, sugges ing ha gene ic a ian s which enhance ce ain in ellec ual capaci ies may also inc ease
suscep ibili y o diso de s like schizoph enia and bipola diso de .
61
A pa adox eme ges when a humanoid, Kla a, o en shows g ea e empa hy
han he humans a ound he . This heme has gained wide a en ion among c i ics,
who equen ly in e p e he no el as a e lec ion on wha i means o be human –
a ques ion answe ed by a non-human being. Fo ins ance, Oli e Li and Johan
Eddebo desc ibe i as a s o y ha disco e s “ he humani y o he non-human”
(2023), and Anupama Hosu i no es ha Kla a’s kindness, innocence, and emo-
ional hones y a e quali ies wo h admi ing when con as ed wi h hose o he hu-
man cha ac e s (2021). I is ue ha A i icial F iends o en po ay a sense o
human solida i y ha is especially lacking in he li ed child en. Howe e , his
idea can be aken u he as no all A i icial F iends a e he same. Jus as he no el
dis inguishes be ween li ed and non-li ed child en, i likewise es ablishes a hie -
a chy among humanoids. Ishigu o in oduces wo gene a ions: he olde B2 mod-
els, like Kla a, and he newe B3 a ian s. While B3s come wi h echnical up-
g ades, such as imp o ed mo emen and a limi ed sense o smell, hey a e said o
be less emo ionally awa e. E en hough he s o e manage admi s ha he new
B3s a e “a li le heads ong” (2021, 46), she dismisses his conce n o boos sales;
in he end, howe e , she acknowledges ha pa en s “ne e eally ook o hem”
(2021, 339) despi e hei imp o emen s. This poin s o a deepe issue: he mo e
echnically ad anced he A i icial F iends become, he less emo ionally sui able
hey a e o hei ole as companions. The B3s begin o exhibi ai s such as apa-
hy, de achmen , and e en supe io i y, which con adic hei main pu pose o
emo ional suppo . Kla a no ices such beha io in he s o e, whe e B3s sub ly
mock he olde models and mo e away om hem. They exchange “sly looks and
signals” (2021, 41), e ealing a new le el o sel -awa eness. Kla a exp esses he
conce n: “The new B3s, i was said, had all so s o imp o emen s. Bu how could
hey be good AFs o hei child en i hei minds could in en ideas like hese?”
(2021, 41), ques ioning he no ion ha echnological p og ess always leads im-
p o emen .
This key poin expands he discussion o he ela ionship be ween humans
and non-humans in he no el by illus a ing how he inc easing sophis ica ion o
a i icial beings may dis up he e y quali ies – such as empa hy and loyal y –
ha jus i y humanoids’ social oles. The A i icial F iends in Kla a and he Sun
mo e han con as human laws – hey also highligh and exagge a e hem, aising
issues abou mo al de elopmen . In pa icula , he beha io o non-human cha -
ac e s in i es a b oade bioe hical e lec ion: wha does hei conduc e eal abou
he mo al p og ess o humans? Ra he han simply mi o ing hei c ea o s, he
humanoids expose he limi s o enhancemen when i is ocused solely on
62
in elligence o abili y, and no on e hics o empa hy. To main ain ocus on he
pe spec i e o he li ed child en, i is necessa y o se aside ques ions o obo ic
au onomy, e en hough hey emain ele an wi hin he ield o obo e hics.
5
Ishi-
gu o implies ha enhancemen – whe he limi ed o ex ensi e – does no gua an-
ee mo al g ow h. The li ed child en ha e enhanced cogni i e abili ies bu show
li le empa hy o emo ional ma u i y. A simila issue a ises wi h he new B3 A i-
icial F iends. Despi e being echnically mo e ad anced han he olde B2 models,
hey exhibi conce ning ai s like a ogance; on he o he hand, Kla a, a B2 model,
consis en ly shows kindness, loyal y, and emo ional sensi i i y. Ins ead o mo al
g ow h, i appea s ha enhancemen leads o mo al eg ession. Ishigu o’s po -
ayal sugges s a bio-conse a i e iewpoin , as ep esen ed by igu es such as
Sandel (2007) and Habe mas (2003), bo h o whom ques ion he assump ion ha
echnological o gene ic ad ancemen au oma ically leads o e hical p og ess.
The idea o mo al enhancemen o e s a use ul lens h ough which o ex-
amine emo ional and e hical de iciencies in he no el. Kla a and he Sun po ays
condi ions ha e lec he u gen need o wha bioe hicis s such as Ingma
Pe sson and Julian Sa ulescu conside essen ial: mo al enhancemen (2012, 121).
Acco ding o hem, he p oblem is no a lack o capaci y o mo al g ow h, bu
a he he in luence o p ide, esis ance o change, and unsuppo i e social en i-
onmen s. As echnology con inues o ad ance, b inging wi h i isks such as
weapons o mass des uc ion (Pe sson and Sa ulescu 2012) and global challenges
like clima e change and en i onmen al deg ada ion (La azza and Reichlin 2019),
he need o co esponding mo al p og ess g ows mo e p essing. They a gue ha
in elligence alone is insu icien o mee he complex e hical challenges posed by
mode n socie y. Mo al de elopmen does no necessa ily equi e in asi e bio ech-
nological in e en ion; a he , i can be achie ed by c ea ing condi ions ha en-
cou age p osocial beha io .
By designing asks and social se ings ha p omo e al uism and educe un-
ai ness, mo al endencies can be s eng hened o e ime. The emphasis on he
signi icance o en i onmen highligh s ha he oubling beha io s o he li ed
child en s em om he isola ing condi ions in which hey a e aised. I is no nec-
essa ily he li ing p ocedu e i sel ha in e e es wi h mo al de elopmen o he
enhanced indi iduals, bu a he he social ci cums ances ha accompany i – be-
ing aised in isola ion, homeschooled, and a ely exposed o emo ional di e si y.
To sugges ha he emo ional unde de elopmen o he li ed child en is caused
5
Fo ins ance, Kla a and he Sun in i es engagemen wi h he ongoing deba es abou whe he obo s
should be gi en mo e au onomy, e en i i esul s in less p edic able o socially “desi able” beha io .
63
by he enhancemen p ocedu e would be educ i e. A mo e comp ehensi e in e -
p e a ion suppo ed by Pe sson and Sa ulescu’s wo k on mo al enhancemen
acknowledges ha hei empa hy de ici is a consequence o he en i onmen
shaped by hei li ed s a us. The li ing p ocedu e o e s a social ad an age, bu
i also ein o ces exclusion and limi s exposu e o di e se mo al expe iences.
Conclusion
Kazuo Ishigu o’s Kla a and he Sun (2021) does no place gene ic enginee ing
echnologies a he cen e o i s na a i e in he way science ic ion o en does. I
pushes he heme o enhancemen p ocess o he ma gins whe e i is le unce ain
and la gely unexplained. Ye i is p ecisely his pe iphe al posi ioning, and he
delibe a e omission o bo h he bio echnological speci ics and he e hical o e -
sigh su ounding enhancemen , ha enables a b oade in e p e i e ange. The au-
ho ’s euphemis ic use o he e m “li ing” e lec s he kind o concep ual dis-
ancing ha is o en ound in eal-wo ld discou se su ounding con o e sial bio-
echnologies. By lea ing he li ing p ocedu e inaccessible, Ishigu o c ea es space
o explo e he ques ion o gene ic enhancemen no jus along he ho izon al axis
be ween bio-conse a i e and anshumanis no ions, bu also e ically, p obing
i s social, philosophical, and psychological implica ions. This s udy has a gued
ha Ishigu o p esen s a wo ld in which enhancemen is nei he idealized no con-
demned bu si ua ed wi hin a ne wo k o emo ional consequences and e hical am-
bigui ies. Th ough he analysis o pe spec i es o li ed and non-li ed child en,
hei pa en s, and he A i icial F iends who silen ly wi ness a - eaching human
decisions, he s udy aimed o b ing unde examined dimensions o he no el –
namely, he bioe hical ension be ween pa en al aspi a ion and a child’s au onomy,
he emo ional cos o enhancemen , and he e osion o empa hy – in o close ocus.
The unde ep esen ed mo i o li ing in he na a i e e lec s how bio echnologi-
cal change equen ly en e s socie y – no as a clea ly a icula ed e hical choice,
bu as a quie ine i abili y masked by he he o ic o p og ess.
F om he pe spec i e o pa en s, he no el p esen s li ing as a mo ally com-
plica ed decision ma ked by emo ional weigh and possible long- e m conse-
quences. Thei dilemmas a e en iched by he con as ing ideas o Michael J. San-
del’s c i ique o pa en al con ol and Julian Sa ulescu’s p inciple o p oc ea i e
bene icence. The iewpoin o non-li ed indi iduals, exempli ied by he cha ac e
o Rick, e eals how enhancemen echnologies c ea e no only socio-economic
inequali y bu also emo ional aliena ion, as hey a e capable o widening in e pe -
sonal di ides and dis ancing e en close ela ionships. This e lec s Fukuyama’s

64
and Daniel L. Tobey’s conce ns ha gene ic s a i ica ion weakens sha ed ecog-
ni ion and unde mines he ounda ions o emo ional connec ion. Finally, h ough
he pe spec i e o li ed child en coupled wi h A i icial F iends, he no el ex-
poses a g owing de ici o empa hy. Thei cogni i e supe io i y is no ma ched by
emo ional de elopmen , mainly due o he isola ing social en i onmen s ha ac-
company he li ing p ocedu e. As Ingma Pe sson and Julian Sa ulescu wa n,
wi hou co esponding mo al de elopmen , gene ic enhancemen isks esul ing
no in p og ess bu in a sub le mo al eg ession.
Wha ul ima ely allows o a b oade in e p e a ion o Kla a and he Sun is
he agueness su ounding gene ic enhancemen in he no el, a heme ha is al-
eady specula i e in i sel . Kazuo Ishigu o a oids desc ibing any bioe hical egu-
la ion wi hin he ic ional wo ld, p esen ing he enhancemen p ocess as con olled
only by inancial means. The lack o speci ici y encou ages in e p e a ion o de-
elop no only h ough echnical o legal ques ions o gene ic modi ica ion bu
also, as in he case o Kla a and he Sun, h ough he cha ac e s hemsel es – hei
iews, beha io , and ela ionships.
Acknowledgemen
The chap e was c ea ed a he Ins i u e o Wo ld Li e a u e, Slo ak Academy o
Sciences in B a isla a, as pa o VEGA p ojec No. 2/0163/22.
Re e ences
Acke man, Sand a. 1992. Disco e ing he B ain. Washing on: The Na ional Academies P ess.
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.17226/1785.
Aga , Nicholas. 2004. Libe al Eugenics: In De ence o Human Enhancemen . New Je sey: The
Wiley Blackwell.
Alanis-Loba o, G ego io, Jasmin Zoh en, A shan McCa hy, No ah M. E. Foga y, Nada Ku-
biko a, Emily Ha dman, Ma ia G eco, Dagan Wells, James M. A. Tu ne , and Ka hy K. Niakan.
2021. “F equen Loss o He e ozygosi y in CRISPR-Cas9-edi ed Ea ly Human Emb yos.” P o-
ceedings o he Na ional Academy o Sciences o he Uni ed S a es o Ame ica 118, 22. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1073/pnas.2004832117.
Allen, Ga land E. 2003. “Mendel and Mode n Gene ics: The Legacy o Today.” Endea ou 27,
2: 63–68. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/S0160-9327(03)00065-6.
Amsen, E a. 2025. “The Legacy o Asiloma .” Na u al Science. JSTOR Daily, June 11, 2025.
h ps://daily.js o .o g/ he-legacy-o -asiloma /.
65
Aud oue, Vale ie. 1955. “The Redisco e y o he Wo k o G ego Mendel.” Bios 26, 4: 199–
205.
Ball, Philip. 2013. “In Re ospec : B a e New Wo ld.” Na u e 503: 338–339. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1038/503338a.
Bane jee, Agnibha. 2022. “‘Jus Fab ic:’ The Becoming Black o he (Pos )Human in Kazuo
Ishigu o’s Kla a and he Sun (2021).” Sillages c i iques 32. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.4000/sil-
lagesc i iques.13104.
Baylis, F ançoise, Ma cy Da no sky, Ka ie Hasson, and Timo hy M. K ahn. 2020. “Human
Ge m Line and He i able Genome Edi ing: The Global Policy Landscape.” The CRISPR Jou -
nal 3, 5. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1089/c isp .2020.0082.
Bea , G eg. 1985. Blood Music. Ma yland: A bo House.
Bi keland, Vebjø n Jose sen. 2023. “T acing he Roo s o Kazuo Ishigu o’s Kla a and he Sun
in Ma y Shelley’s F ankens ein: An Uncanny Pe spec i e on Lo eless Humani y.” Mas e The-
sis, Uni e si y o Oslo. Accessed on Feb ua y 6, 2025. h ps://www.duo.uio.no/han-
dle/10852/104740.
Blish, James. 1957. The Seedling S a s. New Yo k: Gnome P ess.
Bos om, Nick. 2005. “In De ense o Pos human Digni y.” Bioe hics 19, 3: 202–214.
Bos om, Nick, and Rebecca Roache. 2007. “E hical Issues in Human Enhancemen .” In New
Wa es in Applied E hics, eds. Jespe Rybe g, Thomas Pe e sen and Cla k Wol , 120–152. New
Yo k: Palg a e-Macmillan.
Buchanan, Allen, Dan W. B ock, No man Daniels, and Daniel Wikle . 2000. F om Chance o
Choice: Gene ics and Jus ice. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Chen, Jinming, and Xiaohui Liang. 2024. “AI as O he : Recon igu ing Human in Machines
Like Me and Kla a and he Sun.” In e na ional Jou nal o Educa ion & Mul idisciplina y S ud-
ies 20, 3: 178–195. DOI: h p://dx.doi.o g/10.21013/jems. 20.n3.p2.
Clu e, John, Da id Lang o d, Pe e Nicholls, and G aham Sleigh . 2021. The Encyclopedia o
Science Fic ion. 4 h Edi ion. Accessed on Feb ua y 18, 2025. h ps://s -encyclopedia.com/en-
y/gene ic_enginee ing.
Congdon, B ad. 2011. “‘Communi y, Iden i y, S abili y’: The Scien i ic Socie y and he Fu u e
o Religion in Aldous Huxley’s B a e New Wo ld.” ESC: English S udies in Canada 37, 3: 83–
105. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1353/esc.2011.0041.
Dayal, Ashok. 2024. “Kazuo Ishigu o’s Kla a and he Sun as Dys opian Wo k.” In e na ional
Jou nal o English Resea ch 10, 2: 24–25.
DeG azia, Da id. 2016. “E hical Re lec ions on Gene ic Enhancemen wi h he Aim o Enla g-
ing Al uism.” Heal h Ca e Anal 24: 180–195. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10728-015-0303-
1.
66
Deka, Kisho Kuma . 2024. “Social Class and Inequali y in a Dys opian Fu u e: A S udy o
Kla a and he Sun by Kazuo Ishigu o.” Jou nal o Visual and Pe o ming A s 5, 1: 1561–1564.
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.29121/shodhkosh. 5.i1.2024.3837.
Deleuze, Gilles. 1992. “Pos sc ip on he Socie ies o Con ol.” Oc obe 59: 3–7.
h ps://www.js o .o g/s able/778828.
Eichmeie , Ap il A., Luye Bao, Michael A. Xenos, Dominique B ossa d, and Die am A.
Scheu ele. 2023. “Fic ional Scena ios, Real Conce ns: Science Fic ion and Pe cep ions o Hu-
man Genome Edi ing.” JCOM 22, 1. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.22323/2.22010208.
F iedmann, Theodo e, and Richa d Roblin. 1972. Gene The apy o Human Gene ic Disease?
Science 175, 4025: 949–955. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1126/science.175.4025.949.
Fukuyama, F ancis. 2002. Ou Pos human Fu u e: Consequences o he Bio echnology Re o-
lu ion. New Yo k: Fa a , S aus and Gi oux.
Goodyea , Dana. 2023. “Dange ous Designs.” A Repo e a La ge. The New Yo ke . Accessed
on Feb ua y 18, 2025. h ps://www.newyo ke .com/magazine/2023/09/11/ he- ans o ma i e-
ala ming-powe -o -gene-edi ing.
Go dijn, Be , and Henk en Ha e. 2018. “Science ic ion and bioe hics.” Medicine, Heal h
Ca e and Philosophy 21: 277–278. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11019-018-9848-8.
Gos imskaya, I ina. 2022. “CRISPR-Cas9: A His o y o I s Disco e y and E hical Conside a-
ions o I s Use in Genome Edi ing.” Biochemis y Moscow 87: 777–788. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/
10.1134/S0006297922080090.
G eely, Hen y T. 2019. “CRISPR’d Babies: Human Ge mline Genome Edi ing in he ‘He
Jiankui A ai ’.” Jou nal o Law and he Biosciences 6, 1: 111–183. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/
10.1093/jlb/lsz010.
Habe mas, Jü gen. 2003. The Fu u e o Human Na u e. Camb idge: Poli y P ess.
Haldane, John Bu don Sande son. 1924. Daedalus; o , Science and he Fu u e. London: Du on
and Company.
Ha is, Mason. 2002. “Vi isec ion, he Cul u e o Science, and In ellec ual Unce ain y in The
Island o Doc o Mo eau.” Go hic S udies 4, 2: 99–115. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.7227/GS.4.2.2.
Hosu i, Anupama. 2021. “Kla a and he Sun: A Fable o Humani y in a Pos human Wo ld.”
Global Jou nal o Human-Social Science 21, (A7): 61–69.
Huxley, Aldous. 1932. B a e New Wo ld. London: Cha o and Windus.
Isaacson, Wal e . 2021. The Code B eake : Jenni e Doudna, Gene Edi ing, and he Fu u e o
he Human Race. New Yo k: Simon and Schus e .
Ishigu o, Kazuo. 2016. “We’ e Coming Close o he Poin Whe e We Can C ea e People Who
a e Supe io o O he s.” The Gua dian. Accessed on Feb ua y 26, 2025. h ps://www. hegua -
67
dian.com/science/2016/dec/02/kazuo-ishigu o-we e-coming-close- o- he-poin -whe e-we-can-
c ea e-people-who-a e-supe io - o-o he s.
Ishigu o, Kazuo. 2021. Kla a and he Sun. London: Fabe and Fabe .
Kass, Leon R. 2003. “Ageless Bodies, Happy Souls: Bio echnology and he Pu sui o Pe ec-
ion.” New A lan is 1: 9–28.
Koso is, Alexande . 2021. “Kla a and he Sun: A Wo king-class Fable (Wi h Spoile s).” Koso-
is.com. Accessed on Feb ua y 26, 2025. h ps://koso is.com/essays/kla a-and- he-sun-a-wo k-
ing-class- able-wi h-spoile s/.
K ess, Nancy. 1993. Begga s in Spain. New Yo k: William Mo ow and Company.
La azza, And ea, and Massimo Reichlin. 2019. “In oduc ion: Mo al Enhancemen .” Topoi 38:
1–5. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11245-019-09638-5.
Lewis, Ricki. 2021. “The Age o Gene ically-Enhanced Child en is App oaching. No elis
Kazuo Ishigu o Imagines a Ha e-and-ha e no Fu u e, and I ’s no Pleasan .” Gene ic Li e acy
P ojec . Accessed on Feb ua y 10, 2025.
Li, Oli e , and Johan Eddebo. 2023. “The Humani y o he Non-human – Themes o A i icial
Subjec i i y in Ishigu o’s Kla a and he Sun.” New Techno Humani ies 3: 124–129. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. echum.2023.11.001.
MacCabe, James Hun e , Ami Sa iaslan, Ca a ina Almq is , Paul Lich ens ein, Hen ik La s-
son, and Simon Kyaga. 2018. “A is ic C ea i i y and Risk o Schizoph enia, Bipola Diso de
and Unipola Dep ession: A Swedish Popula ion-based Case-con ol S udy and Sib-Pai Anal-
ysis.” The B i ish Jou nal o Psychia y 212, 6: 370–376. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1192/
bjp.2018.23.
Na imani Cha an, Na id. 2023. “Pos human Explo a ions: Explo a ions: E hical Challenges
and Dys opian Imagina ion in Kazuo Ishigu o’s Fic ion.” Disse a ion Thesis, Uni e si y o Pa-
do a. Accessed on Feb ua y 12, 2025. h ps://hdl.handle.ne /20.500.12608/79784.
Naq i, Seh ish. 2025. “Pos humanism and Digi al Subjec i i y in Kazuo Ishigu o’s Kla a and
he Sun: Decons uc ing Human Iden i y in he Age o A i icial In elligence.” Academia: In-
e na ional Jou nal o Social Sciences 4, 2: 875–886.
Pe sson, Ingma , and Julian Sa ulescu. 2012. Un i o he Fu u e: The Need o Mo al En-
hancemen . Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Rubeis, Gio anni, and Flo ian S ege . 2018. “Risk and Bene i s o Human Ge mline Genome
Edi ing: An E hical Analysis.” Asian Bioe hics Re iew 10: 133–141. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/
10.1007/s41649-018-0056-x.
Sandel, Michael J. 2007. The Case agains Pe ec ion: E hics in he Age o Gene ic Enginee -
ing. Massachuse s: Belknap P ess a Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Sa ulescu, Julian. 2001. “P oc ea i e Bene icence: Why We Should Selec he Bes Child en.”
Bioe hics 15, 5-6: 413–426. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/1467-8519.00251.
74
asks, and some seek o o ge a close bond wi h Will, wi h only Emma choosing
no o pu sue success a any cos . They possess ac uali y, expe ience senso y and
emo ional e en s, and obse e, bo h in eal ime and h ough eco dings, he ex-
pe iences, beha iou s, and decisions o indi iduals in he eal wo ld (speci ically,
hose who ha e al eady been bo n). They examine hese eal-li e con lic s and
exp ess hei own opinions and a i udes. Wi hin his amewo k o exis ence,
souls a e con on ed wi h illusion and an unce ain, uns able sense o iden i y.
Du ing hei i s con e sa ion wi h Will, hey lea n hei names, which hey sub-
sequen ly s a o iden i y wi h. A his ea ly s age, Emma shows an ex ao dina y
desi e o asse he ee will: she esis s accep ing an imposed name bu , lacking
an al e na i e, ul ima ely decides o adop i . While he soul’s a a a pe sis s a e
bi h, i is “ he same being”; none heless, i is ebo n as an in an in a andom
body, once again acing he unce ain ies o he en i onmen and o expe ience.
Following bi h, he iden i y o med in he ealm o p e-exis ence g adually ades
om memo y. Could i be ha his iden i y was simply an illusion? E en i exis -
ence pe sis s, could he a a a ’s iden i y also be an illusion?
F om he e y beginning, he candida es a e awa e ha hei pu pose is o
anish, eminiscen o Heidegge ’s concep o he “insu moun able possibili y o
being”, which encompasses dea h as he ul ima e conclusion and closu e o exis -
ence (2008, 292–294). “Being- owa ds-dea h” se es as he ounda ion o hei
exis ence as souls empo a ily embodied in human o m, wi h each indi idual’s
du a ion a ying ( o ins ance, a soul selec ed o ebi h expe iences a p e-exis -
ence pe iod o nine days, whe eas o he souls may disappea andomly du ing he
selec ion p ocess).
In Nine Days, Oda explo es hemes o ea and exis en ial anxie y ela ed
o dea h. The candida es ying o a chance a exis ence encoun e a wo old ea :
i s ly, he ea o ailu e and exclusion om he con es o ex ending li e, and
secondly, he ea o hei own ini ude. The selec ion p ocess ans o ms in o a
jou ney o disco e ing he meaning o exis ence only o Emma, who, due o he
uniqueness, exis s beyond he bu den o hese opp essi e emo ions. Each soul’s
a a a expe iences hei “end” uniquely, as an in ima e possibili y ha canno be
assumed o subs i u ed by ano he . Each indi idual con on s hei ini ude in hei
own way. Some do his h ough denial and a ejec ion o he game’s ules; a e
elimina ion, one discon en ed candida e wande s alone ac oss he dese , ul i-
ma ely unable o escape hei a e and ading om exis ence (consumed by no h-
ingness). Ano he con on s hei end wi h igno ance and indi e ence; his is he
case wi h he hedonis and i le , who disappea s wi h a bee bo le in hand. Ye

75
ano he indi idual does so h ough ea , as happens wi h he a is ically gi ed,
hype sensi i e young man. And ano he indi idual possesses a hope ha hey
cling on o un il he e y end, such as he woman yea ning o a oman ic connec-
ion wi h Will. And hen he e is Emma, who app oaches he end h ough genuine
peace, balance, and e en joy, exuding se eni y. In he ins ances o he i s wo
a a a s, “ he e u n o li e” exhibi ed de iance and unconsciousness, while Will
demons a ed a lack o compassion, espec , and any sense o solida i y among
human beings.
Fo he ejec ed candida es who, o a ying ex en s, accep ed he p inciples
o he in e iew p ocess, Will no only acili a ed bu me iculously o ches a ed
he e en , o i ual, o conclusion, ha is, o hei dying and dea h. Fo he young
couple in lo e, he designed hea ical se s enhanced by mul imedia echnology,
employing he same app oach in each ins ance. One migh e e o an imi a ion o
a cul u ally cons uc ed ep esen a ion o dea h, an audio isual allego y o dying
and mo ali y, o he essence o a ull une al ce emony. In he concluding phase
o he unsuccess ul in e iew, he a a a documen s a signi ican e en o expe i-
ence – one ha had been pe sonally expe ienced by an indi idual and con eyed
h ough he moni o – ha was o ma i e o hem. This expe ience, se ing as a
inal wish, is subsequen ly eenac ed in a simula ed hea ical and mul imedia e-
ali y, o ches a ed by Will and Kyo, while Emma, unbeknowns o Will, wa ches
oyeu is ically. A he ime o “disappea ance” and i s conclusion, Will inds him-
sel alone wi h he a a a o he soul.
In addi ion o se ing as he o ganize o he in e iews, Will akes on a
dis inc i e ole as a guide h ough a une al i e o he young a is who has los
he cou age and s eng h o con inue li ing and whose inal wish is o spend ime
on a beach – o eel he wa m sand, he ocean wa es, he sea b eeze, and he b igh
sunligh . In his con ex , Will embodies, in a sense, Le inas’s “Second” be o e he
“Fi s ” (Walczak 2023, 15) and esembles Cha on, accompanying he soul o he
o he sho e and in o ano he ealm. In he inal sho , he wo si side by side on a
bench, me e shadows agains a sunli ho izon, un il, ab up ly and wi hou na a-
i e emphasis, one o he shadows disappea s – as i a ligh bulb has been suddenly
u ned o .
In he con ex o iewing exis ence as a chance o mould one’s eali y and
ul il he pu poses o one’s being, he a is ically gi ed man who demons a ed no
desi e o shape his own li e inds ha he i ual pe o med o him a he end o
his li e – essen ially a o m o olun a y eu hanasia – se es as a ep esen a ion o
dea h as a (non-co po eal) on ological ca ego y akin o Le inas’s concep o he
76
“Mys e y”. Le inas sugges s ha he unknown aspec o dea h, which does no
ini ially appea as no hingness bu ins ead esembles he expe ience o he impos-
sibili y o no hingness, does no imply ha dea h is a domain om which no one
has e u ned. Ins ead, i implies ha dea h canno occu as long as he subjec is
connec ed o some hing ha does no o igina e om hemsel es. To pu i di e -
en ly, he subjec exis s in ela ion o he mys e y (1999, 69).
In he second scena io, in ol ing he woman whose ul ima e wish was o
ide a bicycle h ough he s ee s and along a pic u esque pa k a enue, complica-
ions could ha e a isen. She could no le go o he hope o changing he a e, and
Oda decided agains po aying he “disappea ance”. This decision was ce ainly
no a esul o a lack o c ea i e ision, bu a he a delibe a e s a egy o lea e he
s o y open-ended. We can he e o e specula e whe he he disappea ance was, in
some way, coe ced, o whe he u he pe suasion had been equi ed. In Emma’s
case, Will does no o ganize a une al i e, because he is unable o honou he inal
wish. I seems ha Emma is des ined o ollow he same pa h as he i s candida e,
who de ied he ules o he game and en u ed in o obli ion wi hou assis ance.
A he same ime, Will disco e s a message le by Emma: “Che ish e e y momen
o li e,” accompanied by he dia y en ies e ched on a ious i ems, including “A
Day a he Beach”, “Kyo’s Laugh e ”, “Tea wi h Kyo,” and o he s. In line wi h
he s uc u e o a hype ex ual node, Will pieces oge he hese non-subo dina ed
elemen s o Emma’s beha iou – he ques ions, obse a ions, and indi e ence o
ailu e du ing he in e iews, and he po en ial easoning behind he inal wish,
which he had p e iously dismissed. Al hough Emma en e ed he ealm o p e-
exis ence h ough no choice o he own, she ac i ely shapes he exis ence wi hin
i , exe cising he own will apa om he on ological cons ain s o he wo ld
a ound he , be i ma e ial o spi i ual. Du ing he in e iews, Emma concen a ed
on empa he ically g asping Will’s si ua ion; a ha ime, he was acing deep dis-
appoin men bo h in his ole as a selec o – ha ing made a eg e able decision in
he p e ious in e iew ha esul ed in he soul he had chosen commi ing suicide
– and as a o me li ing pe son who had likely also ended his own li e p ema-
u ely.
Emma examined a chi al eco dings om Will’s li e and e ealed his emo-
ional dep h and i s consequences: sensi i i y, eelings o loneliness, abandon-
men , helplessness agains he wo ld’s e ils, and he impac o a sel -des uc i e
li e s a egy ha hinde ed his abili y o shape his li e in a way ha would ul il he
“some hing” ha de ined his pu pose o li ing. Will had aspi ed o be an ac o , a
d eam he ne e ealized; his li e el incomple e, which may ha e con ibu ed o
77
his decision o ake his own li e. Wi nessing Will in he ole o an ac o was p ob-
ably he las un ul illed desi e. Emma’s legacy, cap u ed in he dia y en ies, led
Will o a p o ound ealiza ion, allowing him o unde s and he impo ance o he
inal wish and esol e o ul il i jus be o e he disappea ance. In he ilm’s con-
cluding scenes, Will, much like a hea ical deus ex machina, expe iences a p o-
ound ans o ma ion and splendidly eci es Wal Whi man’s Song o Mysel o
Emma. Th ough his pe o mance, he becomes an ou s anding ac o and, in doing
so, expe iences a momen o genuine li e. Fo Emma, he essence o he ime in
he ealm o p e-exis ence lay in ecognizing he own iden i y on he own e ms,
cha ac e ized by kindness, a genuine in e es in o he s, and an openness ha was
una ec ed by he judgemen s o Will as he selec o .
Du ing Will’s pe o mance, bo h come o ully g asp he signi icance o
hei exis ence h ough hei ace- o- ace in e ac ion. When aced wi h he limi a-
ions o li e, hey unco e hei ue sel es, which, as Heidegge sugges s, in ol es
no jus exis ing bu also li ing in ha mony wi h one’s essence (2008, 59). The
au hen ic expe ience o being se es as a momen o ca ha sis wi hin he ilm’s
s a egic con ex . In he inal sho , bo h cha ac e s anish a he same ime. The
p oposed ilm s a egy acili a es ca ha sis and os e s a subjec i e sense o peace,
alle ia es unce ain y, and en iches one’s exis ence wi h meaning, while also pa -
ing he way o mi iga ing he ea o mo ali y. I is p obable ha his e y “au a”
is wha au ho s Nicole Piemon e and Shawn Ab eu aim o con ey o pa ien s in
pallia i e ca e, hei lo ed ones, and ca egi e s, e en i his only sub ly su aces
wi hin he na a i e o Dea h and Dying (2021). I a ises speci ically because i is
no assumed, bu ins ead se es o exp ess he ideal o m o connec ion and com-
passion ha we, as humans, should o e o hose who a e dying. The au ho s col-
labo a i ely e ame his idea as pa o hei c i ique o he o iginal concep o
pallia i e ca e, which I will discuss in he second pa o his a icle.
Dea h oo la e
In he adi ional discou se on eu hanasia, wo p ima y si ua ions and co espond-
ing solu ions a e emphasized:
Allowing physicians o acili a e he dea h o adul pa ien s su e ing om “un-
bea able su e ing” due o a “se ious and incu able illness”. A physician may ei-
he p esc ibe a le hal dose o medica ion o he pa ien o sel -adminis e –
known as medical assis ance in dying, olun a y assis ed dea h, o physician-as-
sis ed suicide – o di ec ly adminis e a le hal injec ion o he pa ien , which is
e e ed o as olun a y eu hanasia (Singe 2021).
78
This de ini ion o “dea h on demand” is also ound in he Encyclopedia o
Bioe hics (Ba in 2004) and p o ides a no ma i e amewo k o bioe hical and
clinical s udies. Nume ous s udies add essing he issue o “helping people die”
also include al e na i e app oaches, such as pallia i e ca e and end-o -li e plan-
ning (Kahana e al. 2004).
Building on his line o easoning, a u ili a ian pe spec i e on eu hanasia
has eme ged no only in academic ci cles bu also when he “indi idual well-being
o he pa ien ” and “indi idual decision-making” come in o con lic wi h he in-
e es s o socie y and he immedia e amily o he pa ien (including he conce ns
and capabili ies o ela i es and heal h insu ance p o ide s) (Ha dwig 1996).
Wi hin his amewo k, eu hanasia is conside ed mo ally jus i iable when dea h
does no occu a he app op ia e ime (i.e. “ oo la e”) o he bene i o socie y,
pa icula ly when i comes o esou ce alloca ion and he need o alle ia e he
s ain on amilial ela ionships caused by he in ense demands o ca egi ing and
he inancial bu den associa ed wi h suppo ing a dying amily membe o some-
one su e ing om a degene a i e illness. In his con ex , he e has been a ising
end o expand bo h he c i e ia and mo i a ions o eu hanasia, encompassing
mo e con o e sial cases, such as he ecen legal amendmen s in Canada ha ha e
ex ended eligibili y o indi iduals wi h men al illnesses, among o he s. A ecen
empha ic s a emen om a heal hca e p o ide ep esen a i e u he emphasizes
he u gen need o commence a comp ehensi e discussion on he poli ical, social,
comme cial, and bioe hical aspec s o eu hanasia. Highligh ing he demog aphic
eali ies o an ageing Wes e n popula ion, he p esen s eu hanasia – eb anded as
“gi ing li e back” – as a u ili a ian app oach o conse ing u u e esou ces and
ca egi ing capaci ies.
In his pa o he a icle, I add ess he issue o eu hanasia in i s p ima y
sense wi hin he con ex o Pakuła’s li e a y wo k Jak nie zabiłem swojego ojca i
jak ba dzo ego ałuj (How I Didn’ Kill My Fa he and How Much I Reg e I ,
2021). Pakuła ad oca es o he legaliza ion o eu hanasia as a means o alle ia -
ing su e ing: “I belie e his su e ing will no ha e been in ain i I w i e abou i
in a book (no abou my a he , bu abou his su e ing) and he book ini ia es a
discussion abou he legaliza ion o eu hanasia. I has o happen: discussion and
LEGALIZATION” (217).
The wo k is poli ically engaged and mainly ocused on in luencing poli ical
decisions (Dunin 2024), aiming o aise public discou se o a le el ha ga ne s
poli ical suppo . Cu en ly, eu hanasia is no included in he pla o m o any po-
li ical pa y, e en hough public opinion polls in Poland – whe e i is c iminalized
79
wi h penal ies anging om h ee mon hs o i e yea s o assis ing o encou aging
such ac s – indica e ha socie y is gene ally in a ou o such measu es. This is
especially signi ican conside ing ha since Poland’s poli ical ans o ma ion in
1989, he Ca holic Chu ch has signi ican ly in luenced and con olled e hical de-
ba es and decisions on c ucial socie al issues, including abo ion, in i o e ili-
za ion, and equal igh s o mino i ies and LGBTQ indi iduals. Pakuła con on s
and c i iques his in luence wi h a sense o emo ional u gency:
I ha e you; you chu ch idio s! How ha d I y no o ha e you oday, and how
mise ably I ail! Fucking bishops. I ’s hem, i ’s hei aul […] Sac ed luna ics, I
wish all o you who sc eam agains eu hanasia would spend mon hs lying down,
howling in pain, and begging o dea h! (Pakuła 2021, 140)
Since he la e 1980s, discussions ega ding he legaliza ion o eu hanasia in
Poland o en esu ace whene e he media d aws a en ion o a speci ic case. In
2008, he ilm Righ o Die? (2007) was eleased in he Uni ed S a es. This wo k
by Canadian ilmmake John Za i sky igni ed discussions, pa icula ly wi hin
Wes e n deba es (Mo is and Plunke 2008), and ul ima ely p o oked a esponse
om he Polish bioe hics’ communi y (e.g. om Hołówka and Te likowski).
While insigh s om academic bioe hics some imes en ich he ongoing deba e in
Poland, hey seem o exe li le in luence in spa king o in igo a ing he discus-
sion (Schick 2016). None heless, examining he con ex , signi icance, and cu en
s a us o bioe hical discussions in Poland would be ad an ageous o he cu en
discussion.
Since 1988 he Public Opinion Resea ch Cen e (Cen um Badań Opinii
Społecznej) has consis en ly analysed he issue o “dea h on demand”. Da a om
2009 e eal ha nea ly hal (48 pe cen ) o esponden s el ha doc o s should
honou he wishes o indi iduals in su e ing who seek assis ance in dying, while
39 pe cen opposed his iew and 13 pe cen we e undecided. Suppo o he le-
galiza ion o “dea h on demand” was e en mo e obus , wi h 61 pe cen endo sing
i o he same easons. The e was a signi ican dec ease in bo h he pe cen age o
hose i mly opposed and hose who we e undecided. Ra ał Boguszewski asse s
ha his “may indica e ha Poles oday, o a ious easons, a e mo e equen ly
e lec ing on e hical issues han in he pas and a e adop ing mo e clea ly de ined
posi ions on hem” (2009, 4). Howe e , he da a also indica e ha he numbe o
esponden s exp essing ag eemen signi ican ly declined when he ques ion was
eph ased om “dea h on demand” o “eu hanasia”, e en among hose who ini-
ially suppo ed he concep o dea h on demand (2009, 6). Public opinion clea ly

80
demons a es ha he e m “eu hanasia” ca ies a nega i e conno a ion, pa ly
shaped by he his o ical memo y o Nazi dea h camps in Poland. I may also ig-
ge di e en associa ions han hose linked o he idea o dea h sough by a e mi-
nally ill indi idual. Fu he mo e, he su ey e ealed ha a i udes owa d eu ha-
nasia we e una ec ed by pe cep ions o he quali y and impo ance o pallia i e
ca e. I also indica ed ha he e we e di e ences based on gende and gene a ion:
women ended o be less suppo i e o eu hanasia, whe eas younge men showed
a g ea e app o al compa ed o olde men (Ibid.).
This inal dis inc ion can be pa ially likened o he c i ical ecep ion o
Pakuła’s book. Younge li e a y c i ics (M ozek 2023; Jakubiec 2024) highligh
he almos jou nalis ic depic ion o pe sonal de ails, including physical decline,
loss o i ali y, and he a ying in ensi y o pain endu ed du ing Pakuła’s a he ’s
inal mon hs. The anguished c ies o a dying man, pleading o a swi dea h – he
same me cy he had g an ed his dog bu which he was denied himsel – p omp ed
c i ics o highligh he signi icance o indi idual igh s in end-o -li e decision-
making. They pe cei ed he absence o legalized eu hanasia in Poland as an unjus
limi a ion on he pe sonal eedom o choice. Thei commi men o he p inciples
o jus ice and eedom o choice is e lec ed in How I Didn’ Kill My Fa he and
How Much I Reg e I and i s hea ical adap a ion, which se es as a p o es ad-
oca ing o he legaliza ion o eu hanasia and a plea agains i s c iminaliza ion.
A membe o he olde gene a ion p o ides a con as ing iewpoin in hei
c i icism, posing a di ec e hical dilemma o Pakuła:
Why didn’ you kill you a he when he asked you o, when you seem con inced
ha i was he igh hing o do? Because he law o bids i ? Because you didn’
ha e he cou age o make he decision and bea he consequences, be hey psy-
chological o mo al? Why did you wan someone else o become a mu de e in
you place? (G abowski, 2023)
A possible esponse is o e ed by John Ha dwig (1996) in his e lec ion on
he app op ia e ime o die. He belie es i is e hically inapp op ia e o di ec a
eques o eu hanasia o a lo ed one, as i can be emo ionally de as a ing o
hem; hey may also lack he knowledge o ul il he eques adequa ely o wi hou
complica ions. In he philosophe ’s iew, his eques should be add essed o a
physician who p io i izes he indi idual’s bes in e es s, has he necessa y p o es-
sional expe ise, and is less ulne able o any possible malicious in en ions om
amily membe s.
81
How I Didn’ Kill My Fa he and How Much I Reg e I was w i en as an
exp ession o us a ion in esponse o Pakuła’s a he ’s e hically demanding ex-
pec a ions and his own expe iences o su e ing. I encoun e ed c i icism o i s
in ellec ually shallow (and e en poli ical) u gency and i s pa e nalism (G abowski
2023). The wo k gains c edibili y no only by depic ing indi iduals who ha e
aced simila expe iences and us a ions (“e e y hing depends on expe ience”;
Pakuła 2021, 145), especially conce ning he concep o a “good dea h” o a lo ed
one – o en elusi e in he ealm o hospi al ca e – bu also h ough i s p oac i e
in ol emen in a is ic and social ini ia i es ha embody he slogan “T us me,
I’m an a is ,” which ac s as a guiding p inciple o p ojec s aimed a encou aging
public dialogue (Dumi iu and Fa sides 2017). I am e e encing no only he he-
a ical adap a ion o he p ose bu also o he in e iews wi h Pakuła om li e a y
es i als a ailable on YouTube, as well as pos -pe o mance discussions, includ-
ing he deba e on “good dea h”, which ea u es hospice ad oca e Anija F anczak
(Pawłowski 2023). The ocus on e hically ambiguous end-o -li e decisions, along
wi h he ex ’s u gen and p o oca i e one, de ines i s social ele ance and se s
Pakuła’s wo k apa om o he w i ings ha simila ly explo e pe sonal expe i-
ences o dea h and dying (Tuszyńska 2007).
How I Didn’ Kill My Fa he and How Much I Reg e I was w i en in e-
sponse o he agili y o human li e and he ailu e o scien i ic au ho i y – spe-
ci ically he doc o ’s ul ima ely e oneous p edic ion o a painless dea h o
Pakuła’s a he : “Dad is sleeping a lo now, he doc o says his is how i goes, ha
he’s dying, ha one day he jus won’ wake up. I hink ha ’s no so bad. I hink
i ’s a good dea h. Eu hanasia” (2021, 85). Howe e , in eali y, he medical p og-
nosis p o es o be inco ec , and dea h does no occu as an icipa ed. Conse-
quen ly, he cen al heme o he book e ol es a ound pain and su e ing (“ he
book is no abou my a he , bu abou pain”; Pakuła 2021, 32). The a he ’s an-
guish and he son’s o men o e his inabili y o kill – which he holds himsel
accoun able o – leads him o jus i y his ac ions and ul ima ely inspi es him o
w i e he book; pain se es as a a ionale o eu hanasia. Howe e , i he son, de-
spi e his s ong connec ion wi h his a he , does no possess he psychological
s eng h o ca y ou an ac o me cy killing (“and in mo ies i ’s so easy!”; 155),
hen pe haps pallia i e ca e ep esen s a less p oblema ic al e na i e o alle ia -
ing su e ing. This is p ecisely why I app oach he opic o pain h ough he lenses
o li e a y heo y and bioe hics. Such a amewo k allows me o a gue ha Pakuła
need no eg e no ha ing killed his a he .
82
Fo he pu poses o his a icle, I asse ha enowned li e a y wo ks such
as Wa and Peace and The Dea h o I an Ilyich con ibu e o cul u al e lec ions
on dea h jus as signi ican ly as he equen ly o e looked discipline o anaes he-
siology (Bou ke 2014) and how he ad ancemen o pain- elie ing medica ions
shape he cul u e o medicine. I p ima ily ocus on he wo k o pallia i e ca e
expe s Nicole Piemon e and Shawn Ab eu, Dea h and Dying (2021); li e a y
schola Sebas ian Po zuczek’s Mapowanie bólu. Lek u a – Spoj zenie – A ek
(Mapping Pain: Reading, Pe spec i e, A ec ) (2020); and bioe hicis Nina
S eeck’s “Dea h Wi hou Dis ess? The Taboo o Su e ing in Pallia i e Ca e”
(2019). I hope his app oach will p o e use ul, e en hough e e ences o medical
con ex s in li e a y schola ship end o be only ma ginal, wi h he same o en being
ue in e e se.
Un il ecen ly, he in e p e a ion and analysis o li e a y wo ks we e cha -
ac e ized by he p io i iza ion o he mind o e he body, esul ing in a p onounced
dicho omy be ween physical and psychological pain. In addi ion, wi hin he li e -
a y adi ion, pain has equen ly been seen as anscending he bounda ies o lan-
guage ( he non- e e en iali y o pain), being con eyed h ough sc eams ha esis
any linguis ic exp ession capable o being sha ed h ough wo ds. This app oach
signi ican ly s igma ized pain. Po zuczek (2020) no es ha schola s in luenced by
Ludwig Wi gens ein’s linguis ic insigh s ha e expe ienced a signi ican shi
om ocusing on he semio ic aspec s o pain o i s cul u al dimensions; Wi gen-
s ein a gued ha he concep o pain was lea ned alongside language i sel (2000,
169). This b oade iew o pain as a e lec i e expe ience (simila o he concep
o “ o al pain”) was in oduced by Da id B. Mo is, who con ended ha pain can-
no simply be seen as a biological esponse (impulse) bu mus be unde s ood as
an in ensi y el and in e p e ed wi hin pa icula socio-his o ical con ex s (1999,
39). Joanna Bou ke (2014) u he explo es his concep , asse ing ha pain un-
de goes nego ia ion p ocesses in which pe sonal and in ima e expe iences in e -
sec wi h wide social expec a ions (see Po zuczek 2020, 165).
Simila o hese shi s, he e ha e been changes in he unde s anding o pain
wi hin medical cul u e and in he nego ia ion o i s meanings, especially ega ding
e minal illnesses. The pe cep ion o pain has become mo e complex in ela ion
o pa ien s’ e minal condi ions, anscending he simple dis inc ion be ween phys-
ical and psychological pain. The concep o “ o al pain” was in oduced in he
1960s by Cicely Saunde s, who de eloped he idea o pallia i e medicine in e-
sponse o he neglec o e minally ill pa ien s in hospi als. She con as ed pallia-
i e ca e wi h ou ine hospi al ca e, which did no o e comp ehensi e elie om
83
he “physical, biological, psychological, and social” aspec s o pain. This concep
se es as he ounda ion o he ca e e iden in Pakuła’s p ose, whe e he e e ences
a websi e:
The Depa men o Pallia i e Medicine was es ablished in 2000 and ca es o
pa ien s in ad anced s ages o cance . In clinical p ac ice, i p o ides comp ehen-
si e ca e o pa ien s who canno unde go causal ea men . I s goal is o alle ia e
dis essing symp oms, mee he psychosocial and spi i ual needs o pa ien s, and
suppo amilies du ing he illness and a e he dea h o a lo ed one. Pallia i e
ca e is a mul idisciplina y ac i i y (2021, 103).
A snippe o communica ion wi h heal hca e p o ide s e eals ha , a e
i y yea s o p omo ion, implemen a ion, and dissemina ion, he concep o “ o al
pain” has simila ly succumbed o ou ine. As a esul , his has o malized he e-
la ionship be ween pa ien and ca egi e , leading o a g adual decline in quali ies
such as kindness, pa ience, and compassion (S eeck 2020).
– Is he e psychological ca e he e?
– Well... The e was a psychologis , I don’ emembe exac ly, bu I hink so...
– You hink?
– Well, you know, we can’ ge h ough o he pa ien . He’s alking nonsense,
ambling incohe en ly...
– Well, because he’s pumped ull o all so s o ...!
– Yes, bu he psychologis said he ied bu couldn’ ge h ough o him. The
pa ien doesn’ speak logically. He jus babbles (Pakuła 2021, 109).
This discussion om he p ose unde sco es a ious communica ion p ac-
ices (Menchik and Giaquin a 2024) and he challenges associa ed wi h ca e o
e minally ill pa ien s. When in o ming he pa ien (Come 2019) abou hei con-
di ion and p ognosis, in o med consen implies ha , in si ua ions o an icipa ed
“unbea able pain”, he pa ien should be made awa e o he po en ial o pain elie
h ough eu hanasia, e en in ju isdic ions whe e i is no allowed; he e is a need
o ensu e ha he pa ien comp ehends hei ci cums ances, and i is impo an ha
communica ion is bo h compassiona e and hones abou he dying p ocess. As
no ed by Piemon e and Ab eu (2021, 183), doc o s ha e a du y o engage in hese
challenging con e sa ions.
The ou iniza ion o hospi al ca e in he Uni ed S a es is highligh ed by Pie-
mon e and Ab eu (2021), while S eeck (2020) add esses simila issues in pallia-
90
Phillips, Da id P. 1974. “The In luence o Sugges ion on Suicide: Subs an i e and Theo e ical
Implica ions o he We he E ec .” Ame ican Sociological Re iew 39, 3: 340–354. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2094294.
Piemon e, Nicole, and Shawn Ab eu. 2021. Dea h and Dying. Camb idge and London: The
MIT P ess.
Po zuczek, Sebas ian. 2020. Mapowanie bólu. Lek u a – Spoj zenie – A ek . K akow: Uni e -
si as.
Richa ds, Naomi, and Ma ian K awczyk. 2021. “Wha is he Cul u al Value o Dying in an E a
o Assis ed Dying?” Medical Humani ies 47, 1: 61–67. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1136/medhum-
2018-011621.
Schick, A i. 2016. “Whe e o Specula i e Bioe hics? Technological Visions and Fu u e Simu-
la ions in a Science Fic ional Cul u e.” Medical Humani ies 42, 4: 225–231. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.1136/medhum-2016-010951.
Singe , Pe e . 2021. “P awo do eu anazji: nie ‘czy?’, ylko ‘jakie?’.” K y yka poli yczna. Ac-
cessed on Ap il 6, 2024. h ps://k y ykapoli yczna.pl/swia /p awo-do-eu anazji-singe /.
S eeck, Nina. 2020. “Dea h wi hou Dis ess? The Taboo o Su e ing in Pallia i e Ca e.” Med-
icine, Heal h Ca e and Philosophy 23: 343–351. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11019-019-
09921-7.
Suwa a, Bogumiła. 2024. “Rozmani osť ži o a, a najmä jeho konečnos i, na p íklade yb aných
diel.” [The Di e si y o Li e, and o I s Fini ude in Pa icula , on he Example o Selec ed
Wo ks]. Wo ld Li e a u e S udies 16, 2: 89–105. DOI: 10.31577/WLS.2024.16.2.8.
Szukalski, Pio . 2016. “Gdzie umie aj Polacy?” Demog a ia i Ge on ologia Społeczna:
Biule yn in o macyjny 10: 1–4.
Szumpich, S anisław. 2013. Zag oenia społeczne w ok esie p zemian: Szkice z poli yki
społecznej. K ako : K akowskie Towa zys wo Edukacyjne.
Szymbo ska, Wisława. [1957] 1966. Wołanie do Ye i. K akow: Wydawnic wo li e ackie.
Tuszyńska, Aga a. 2007. wiczenia z u a y. K akow: Wydawnic wo li e ackie.
Walczak, Anna. 2023. Wobec mie ci: S udium in ymnoci sy uacji g anicznej. Lodz:
Wydawnic wo Uniwe sy e u Łódzkiego.
Wi gens ein, Ludwig. 2000. Dociekania ilozo iczne. T ans. by Bogusław Wolniewicz. Wa -
saw: Wydawnic wo Naukowe PWN.

91
Two Cases o Suicide in Roman Li e a u e and he Issue o
Assis ed Dea h in Bioe hics
Pe e F aňo
Abs ac : The e lec ion on he issue o suicide is a heme o many wo ks o wo ld li e a u e.
And i is no di e en in he case o G eek and La in li e a y sou ces. In pa icula , he ea ises
om he La e Republic and he Ea ly Empi e a e o pa icula impo ance, since i is in hese
li e a y ex s ha we ha e he highes numbe o desc ip ions o suicidal ac ion s a is ically
documen ed in he whole o ancien li e a u e. F om he many examples o his li e-ending
choice, we will analyse in he ex he desc ip ion o he inal yea s o he li e o Ti us Pompo-
nius A icus, whose biog aphy has been p ese ed o us in he wo k De i is illus ibus by he
Roman biog aphe Co nelius Nepos (Nep. A . 21.1-22.4). The second ancien sou ce would be
Seneca’s Epis ulae Mo ales ad Lucilium, which con ains he s o y o he dea h o an unknown
young man, Tullius Ma cellinus (Sen. Ep. 77.5-9). In con as o many o he sou ces om his
pe iod, hese li e a y exce p s deal wi h he subjec o suicide in some de ail, and o he main
ac o s in he plo , he p ima y eason o i s occu ence is ongoing pain o su e ing (inpa ien-
ia), and hus in hei p ocess hey a e pe haps mos eminiscen o con empo a y bioe hical
deba es ega ding he issue o eu hanasia.
Keywo ds: Suicide. Eu hanasia. S a a ion. Ti us Pomponius A icus. Tullius Ma cellinus.
In oduc ion
Re lec ions on he issue o suicide is an elemen o many wo ks o wo ld li e a u e
om ancien imes up o he p esen . Se e al cha ac e s who decided o end hei
li es in his way ha e a he same ime become pe manen ly insc ibed in he his-
o y o wo ld li e a u e, and he mo i es o hei ac s a e he subjec o ongoing
conside a ions by li e a y schola s. I su ices o ecall he a es o he main p o-
agonis s o wo ks such as The So ows o Young We he , Anna Ka enina o Mad-
ame Bo a y: P o incial Manne s. Along wi h li e a y and academic esea ch,
howe e , he issue o suicide in li e a u e may also be o in e es o o he schola ly
disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology, philosophy), which can make use o he
o en-de ailed na a i e desc ip ions o he psychological s a e o cha ac e s o he
social ci cums ances ha accompany ac s o suicide in hei own p o essional e-
sea ch. One such discipline is bioe hics, which examines, o example, he issue
o he e hical jus i ica ion o ca ying ou assis ed suicide o eu hanasia. The e-
o e, in he ex p esen ed he ein, we will ocus on a compa a i e analysis o h ee
selec ed bioe hical issues ha a e closely associa ed wi h he opic o assis ed
92
dea h wi h wo mo e de ailed desc ip ions o suicide ha a e pa o Roman li e -
a u e. The i s a ea o in e es will be he ques ion o he na u e o illness and i s
mani es a ions, which ul ima ely lead he ac o s o li e a y wo ks o he decision
o commi suicide. The second issue is he o mula ion o he in en ion o die ol-
un a ily i sel , and he ci cums ances ha accompany i . Finally, he hi d ques ion
is he issue o he pe pe a o o his ac and pe sons who may ake pa in i o a
g ea e o lesse ex en . Be o e we begin o e lec on hese issues, le us i s
in oduce some speci ic ea u es o suicide in G eek and Roman li e a u e.
Suicide in he li e a u e o classical an iqui y
We come ac oss a is ic depic ions o suicide a he o en in an iqui y and in all
li e a y gen es o he pe iod. An on J. L. an Hoo , who has examined his opic
in de ail, documen ed a o al o 9639 indi idual cases o suicide in G eek and
La in li e a y ex s ( an Hoo 1990, 233). He s a es ha mos cases come om
he ea ly Empi e pe iod, which we can label as he golden e a o commi ing sui-
cide. I is clea , howe e , ha suicide also occu ed in li e a u e o a g ea e o
lesse ex en ac oss indi idual his o ical epochs, as he ollowing able clea ly
shows:
7
Pe iods
Cases
Coun able
Indi iduals
a. My hical (–750 BC)
125 (0)
130
(0)
b. A chaic (750–500 BC)
38 (18)
44
(20)
c. Classical (500–336 BC)
78 (54)
74
(50)
d. Hellenis ic (336–27 BC)
105 (59)
95
(50)
e. Ea ly Rome (–500 BC)
13 (4)
14
(2)
. Ea ly Republic (500–200 BC)
39 (32)
74
(69)
g. La e Republic (200–27 BC)
164 (133)
2433
(1408)
h. Ea ly Empi e (27 BC–192 AD)
255 (202)
6624
(6575)
i. La e Empi e ( om 192 AD)
51 (41)
71
(61)
I we hen look a he phenomenon o suicide om a sociological pe spec-
i e and accep he hypo hesis ha he inc ease in suicides occu s mainly in pe i-
ods o spi i ual c ises ull o unce ain ies – such as occu ed in he mo e ecen
pas , pa icula ly du ing he Re o ma ion, he Enligh enmen and he in de siècle
a he u n o he 19 h and 20 h cen u ies – hen he ea ly Empi e would ep esen
a simila u ning poin in he psychological ension o man in ela ion o socie y
7
Taken and adap ed om ( an Hoo 1990, 234). The o al numbe o cases is lowe han he abo e-
men ioned numbe o 9639, because in some cases – o example, in ic ional cases – i is no possible
o de e mine he exac pe iod when he suicide was commi ed ( an Hoo 1990, 282n9).
93
in an iqui y (see Masa yk 1881; Du kheim 1897). The easons o such a la ge
inc ease in he numbe o suicides in his e a may a y. The e may ha e been a
change in he poli ical egime, which is cha ac e ised by he concen a ion o
powe in he hands o an indi idual wi h absolu e powe ( he empe o ), and he
p i a e posi ion o a pe son begins o depend on him and his closes ela i es.
Addi ionally, du ing he ea ly Empi e Roman socie y wi nessed many socio-cul-
u al changes (e.g., he eme gence and sp ead o new eligious mo emen s, he
expansion o he empi e’s e i o y, changes in he social s uc u e o socie y),
which al e ed he usual ways o o ien ing people in he wo ld and could ha e led
o inc easing eelings o insecu i y. A he same ime, S oic philosophy, which
ook a posi i e posi ion in ega d o suicide and could he e o e ha e become an
ideological basis o jus i ying such beha iou , came o he o e du ing his pe iod
(Ris 1969, 233–255).
G ego Mau ach no es ha Roman philosophy en e ed i s hi d epoch o
de elopmen du ing he ea ly Empi e and unde wen changes in he a ea o he-
ma ic ocus. I ceased being conce ned p ima ily wi h he e lec ion o human
exis ence in gene al and ocused i s a en ion ins ead on he speci ic pe son who
li es he e and now in his wo ld: “s ilisie e Ich e kö pe Philosophie als Le-
bensges al ung” (“The s ylised sel -embodies philosophy as a way o li e”;
Mau ach 2006, 179). We could ake his s a emen as he p og amma ic slogan o
he pe iod’s S oicism, which became he dominan in ellec ual cu en in he ea ly
Empi e. The S oics belie ed ha cons an ly u ning o onesel helps a pe son o
become independen o ex e nal ac o s. Fo Seneca, as an example, he inne
wo ld ep esen s he only eal possession ha we ha e a ou disposal; he e o e,
we should con inually y o cul i a e i . Wha ’s mo e, a pe son’s in e io is he
only eal e uge om all nega i e ex e nal ac o s (p ope y, ame, poli ical ins a-
bili y, e c.) (Williams 2015, 145–147). And i a si ua ion e e a ises in li e in
which I mysel come in o con lic wi h some hing o eign and impe sonal, and
hese ci cums ances h ea en o ensla e me, hen one o he las op ions o main-
aining con ol o e mysel is o make a a ional decision abou olun a y dea h.
8
Suicide hus became one o he symbols o i m philosophical con ic ion in S oi-
cism.
9
G eek and Roman li e a y ex s depic ing suicidal ac s ha e di e en le els
o in o ma i e alue. In he majo i y o hem we come ac oss only a simple
8
Rega ding he issue o suicide in Seneca’s hough (see Engle 1990; E enepoel 2004; Russell 1973;
Ris 1969, 246–251).
9
In Roman li e a u e, Ca o he Younge (see Plu . Ca . Mi. 67.1–70.6; Sen. Ep. 24.6–8) and Seneca (Tac.
Ann. 15.60–65) abo e all became such symbols.
94
desc ip ion, which does no allow us o e lec on he deepe con ex o his ac
and unco e he eal easons, mo i es o ci cums ances, o e en he ac ual ca y-
ing ou o such a depa u e om he wo ld. An on J. L. an Hoo dis inguishes
ele en main easons why people in an iqui y decided o commi suicide: “despai ”
(despe a a salus), “ o ced in o a ee dea h” (necessi as), “madness” ( u o ),
“g ie ” (dolo ), “cu se” (exsec a io), “shame” (pudo ), “guil ” (mala conscien ia),
“old and ull o yea s” ( aedium i ae), “su e ing” (impa ien ia), “de o io and
ides” (de o io) and “showing o ” (iac a io) ( an Hoo 1990, 85–130).
Fo ou opic, he nin h eason is essen ial – impa ien ia. Wi h illnesses as-
socia ed wi h pain, he quali y o li e can be educed such ha suicide seems o be
a be e way ou han con inuing o li e in pain o su e ing. I is hese suicides
ha a e pe haps mos eminiscen o he cu en bioe hical discussions on he issue
o assis ed dea h o eu hanasia. F om he many po en ial cases o such a choice o
end li e, we will ocus in mo e de ail he e on an analysis o he desc ip ion o he
inal pe iod o he li e o Ti us Pomponius A icus (110–32 BC), a ep esen a i e
o Epicu eanism and a e y close iend o Cice o, whose biog aphy has been
p ese ed in he wo k On Famous Men (De i is illus ibus) by he Roman biog-
aphe Co nelius Nepos (Nep. A . 21.1–22.4). The p ac ical cou se o suicide we
ha e mo e b oadly e lec ed by Seneca in his wo k Mo al Le e s o Lucilium (Ad
Lucilium epis ulae mo ales) on he example o he a e o he young Tullius Ma -
cellinus. In Le e 29 Ma cellinus appea s as a no qui e success ul s uden o Sen-
eca, who akes nei he his philosophical educa ion no his eache ’s ad ice se i-
ously and ins ead makes un o e e y hing. Ne e heless, Seneca does no gi e up
hope ha he could one day g ow in o a pe son de o ed o S oic philosophy i he
can admi his own mis akes and lea n o wo k wi h hem (Sen. Ep. 29.1–9). In
Le e 77 we ead o a cha ac e wi h he same name, so we canno de e mine
whe he i is he same pe son o no , bu he one o his le e is mo e se ious.
Ma cellinus is suddenly s uck by an unexpec ed illness, which esul s in his de-
cision o commi suicide (Sen. Ep. 77.5–9). These wo selec ed cases help us o a
leas b oadly umina e on he issue o suicide in Roman li e a u e and compa e i
wi h some aspec s o he con empo a y bioe hical discussion ega ding assis ed
suicide and eu hanasia.
Eu hanasia and assis ed suicide: Te minological de ini ion in an-
iqui y and oday
The English wo d eu hanasia comes om he G eek noun εὐϑανασία, which is
composed o he p e ix εὖ, “well”, “ ho oughly”, “compe en ly”, “mo ally well”,
95
“kindly” and he noun ϑάνατος, “dea h”. We can hus ansla e he e m εὐϑανασία
as an “easy, happy dea h” (Liddell e al. [1843] 1996, 704; 714; 784). S e en H.
Miles poin s ou ha his wo d does no appea in G eek li e a y ex s be o e 280
BC. I is he e o e a ela i ely new e m. We ind i used o he i s ime in one
su i ing agmen om he comedy The An (Μύρμηξ) by Posidippus o Cassan-
d eia: “O hose hings ha a man [human] p ays o om he gods, no hing is
be e o mee wi h han an easy (happy) dea h” (Ὧν τοῖς ϑεοῖς ἄνϑρωπος εὔχεται
τυχεῖν / τῆς εὐϑανασίας χρεῖττον οὐδὲν εὔχεται).
10
As ollows om his example,
he meaning o he wo d εὐϑανασία in G eek li e a u e did no mainly e e o
assis ance in dying, as we unde s and i oday, bu o he desc ip ion o a na u al,
peace ul dea h wi h no unnecessa y su e ing (Miles 2004, 68).
I is also e iden ha he e m εὐϑανασία e ained his meaning e en in he
much la e Roman pe iod. In one o his le e s, Cice o quo es his iend A icus,
who ep oached him o seeking “a noble dea h” (εὐϑανασίαν), since a e he
assassina ion o Caesa in 44 BC he had conside ed lea ing Rome in such di icul
poli ical imes and going o isi his son in G eece. He hus wan ed o exchange
an easie and ce ainly mo e peace ul dea h ab oad o he chance o a much wo se
dea h ha would h ea en him we e he o emain a home (Cic. A . 16.7; Eng.
ans. Cice o [1918] 1961, 395). Simila ly, he Roman biog aphe Sue onius de-
sc ibes he dea h o he empe o Augus us as ollows: “[...] hus blessed wi h an
easy dea h (exi um acilem) and such a one as he had always longed o . Fo almos
always on hea ing ha anyone had died swi ly (ci o) and painlessly (nullo c uci-
a u), he p ayed ha he and his migh ha e a like eu hanasia (sibi e suis
εὐϑανασίαν similem p ecaba u ), o ha was he e m ( e bo) he was won o use
(u i soleba )” (Sue . Aug. 99.2; Eng. ans. Sue onius [1913] 1979, 281).
A simila p oblem is linked wi h he La in wo d suicidium, om which he
English e m suicide is de i ed. We do no ind his wo d in classical La in li e a y
ex s o designa e he ac o suicide. “The i s uses o suicidium ound so a a e
by Gau hie de Sain -Vic o in 1177/8 and, in English, by Si Thomas B owne in
Religio Medici published in 1643, who p obably in en ed i a esh. The nea es o
a echnical e m in an iqui y was mo s olun a ia ( olun a y dea h) and he G eek
equi alen , e bal ph ases being used o he mos pa ” (Ho nblowe and Spaw-
o h [1949] 2012, 1410). The e o e, i comes as no su p ise ha e en in he wo
li e a y examples ha we discuss in mo e de ail in he ex , we do no ind es ab-
lished La in ph ases used o designa e suicide. A icus says ha : “I am esol ed o
cease o nou ish my malady” (nam mihi s a ale e mo bum desine e) (Nep. A .
10
The G eek ex is aken om (Meineke 1841, 519). The English ex comes om (Miles 2004, 68).

96
21.5; Eng. ans. Co nelius Nepos [1929] 1984, 325), and Seneca, when desc ib-
ing Ma cellinus’s decision, only neu ally s a es: “he began o hink abou dying”
(coepi delibe a e de mo e) (Sen. Ep. 77.5; Eng. ans. Seneca [1920] 1970, 171).
The eade mus he e o e in e om he con ex ha bo h ac o s in he s o y ha e
decided o commi suicide.
Wha ’s mo e, as we will see, i is e y di icul in an iqui y o dis inguish
be ween suicide and assis ed suicide, which is ypical o mode n bioe hical hink-
ing. In ac , people om he closes en i onmen o he main ac o o he plo a e
o en ac i ely in ol ed in he p epa a ion and execu ion o he ac o suicide, and
wi hou hem he suicide could no ake place. I is also assumed ha he inal ac
o dea h will be ca ied ou by he pa ien himsel .
On he o he hand, in con empo a y bioe hical discussions, a g ea deal o
a en ion is paid o he sea ch o a e minological dis inc ion be ween he wo
basic o ms o assis ed dea h (eu hanasia / assis ed suicide). Acco ding o L. W.
Sumne , he main dis inguishing c i e ion is he ques ion o agency, i.e., whe he
he le hal p epa a ion o ending a li e is adminis e ed by a doc o o he pa ien
himsel applies i wi h he doc o ’s assis ance. Based on his speci ica ion, we can
hus d aw he main di iding line be ween he wo o ms o assis ed dea h:
Assis ed suicide is he sel -adminis a ion by a pa ien o a le hal medica ion
whe e (a) he pa ien in ends he medica ion o cause his dea h as a means o
elie ing his su e ing, (b) he pa ien ’s dea h is ac ually caused by he medica-
ion, and (c) he medica ion is p o ided by a physician o he pu pose o acili-
a ing he pa ien ’s suicide.
Eu hanasia is he adminis a ion o a le hal medica ion o a pa ien by a physician
whe e (a) he physician in ends he medica ion o cause he pa ien ’s dea h as a
means o elie ing his su e ing and (b) he pa ien ’s dea h is ac ually caused by
he medica ion (2001, 18–19).
In bo h o ms o assis ed dea h as de ined, a doc o is always p esen and is
ei he he ac i e ini ia o o he pa ien ’s dea h (eu hanasia) o only p o ides he
pa ien wi h a le hal means o ca y ou he ac him/he sel (assis ed suicide). Bu
as we will see, unlike in mode n imes, he igu e o he doc o does no play such
an impo an ole in ancien discussions abou suicide.
Aside om his basic e minological de ini ion, a majo subjec o bioe hi-
cal discussions is he legal amewo k o he condi ions unde which eu hanasia
mus be ca ied ou in o de o be conside ed legal and he e o e clea ly
97
dis inguishable om mu de . In his con ex , Pe e Singe poin s o Du ch legisla-
ion, acco ding o which eu hanasia is legal only when:
• i is ca ied ou by a physician;
• he pa ien has explici ly eques ed eu hanasia in a manne ha lea es no
doub ha he pa ien ’s desi e o die is olun a y, well-in o med and well-
conside ed;
• he pa ien has a condi ion causing p o ac ed physical o men al su e ing
which he pa ien inds unbea able;
• he e is no easonable al e na i e ( easonable om he pa ien ’s poin o iew)
o alle ia e he pa ien ’s su e ing; and
• he doc o has consul ed ano he independen p o essional who ag ees wi h
his o he judgmen ([1980] 2011, 171–172).
In ou iew, hese legal condi ions include h ee undamen al ac o s ha
ame almos e e y bioe hical con o e sy in ega d o he legi imacy o eu hana-
sia. Fo his eason, we will examine hei p esence o absence in mo e de ail in
he con ex o he wo La in ex s men ioned abo e.
The na u e o he illness
The legali y o eu hanasia in he Ne he lands is only ecognised in he case o
illnesses ha cause long- e m physical o psychological su e ing o he pa ien
and no al e na i e ha would alle ia e his su e ing is a ailable. We also come
ac oss an e o o speci y in mo e de ail he illnesses wi h which suicide was
pe missible in G eek and La in hough . Pliny he Elde , o example, men ions
h ee speci ic diseases ha , acco ding o con empo a y knowledge, caused “ he
sha pes agony” (asspe imi c ucia us), and because o ha people o en olun a -
ily ended hei own li es. These we e “s angu y om s one in he bladde ” (cal-
culo um a s illicidio esicae), “disease o he s omach” (s omachi) and “pains p o-
duced by diseases o he head” (in capi e dolean ) (Plin. Na . 25.7.23; Eng. ans.
Pliny [1956] 1966, 153). Diogenes Lae ius on he o he hand, says ha a S oic
sage, i he has a ional easons o do so, can commi suicide o i e easons: “on
his coun y’s behal o o he sake o his iends, o i he su e s in ole able pain,
mu ila ion, o incu able disease” (D. L. 7.130; Eng. ans. Diogenes Lae ius 1925,
235). I is ob ious ha he las h ee men ioned easons a e clea ly ela ed o med-
ical issues. I we imagine he possibili ies o pe iod medical o pallia i e ca e o
acu e and ch onic illnesses, hen i is e iden ha he op ion o olun a ily ending
98
one’s li e was some imes seen as a much be e solu ion han con inuing o li e in
unbea able pain.
I we now look in mo e de ail a wo selec ed ancien cases, in he case o
A icus we a e a he well in o med in de ail abou he cou se and na u e o he
illness ha ul ima ely caused A icus o choose o olun a ily end his li e. Co -
nelius Nepos w i es:
In his ashion A icus comple ed se en y-se en yea s, and up o ha ad anced
age inc eased in digni y, as well as in impo ance and o une— o he acqui ed
many inhe i ances h ough no o he cause han his good quali ies. He also enjoyed
such excellen heal h ha o hi y yea s he equi ed no medical ea men . Bu
jus a ha ime he ell ill o a complain o which a i s bo h he himsel and his
physicians made ligh ; o hey hough i was a dysen e y, o which speedy and
easy emedies we e usually a ailable. When he had su e ed om his ouble o
h ee mon hs wi hou any pain excep wha was caused by his ea men , suddenly
such a iolen o m o he disease a acked his ec um, ha inally is ulas dis-
cha ging pus b oke ou h ough he lowe pa o his back. E en be o e his oc-
cu ed, eeling a daily inc ease o pain a ended wi h e e [...] (Nep. A . 21.1–
4; Eng. ans. 325).
As ollows om he abo e example, A icus p obably su e ed om some
o m o cance in he lowe diges i e ac , mos likely in he “ ec um” (in imum
in es inum), which ini ially caused him “dysen e y” ( enesmon), i.e., equen , u-
ile and pain ul u ges o de eca e (Ho s all 1989, 108–111). Doc o s ini ialy
ea ed his symp om wi h unspeci ied “speedy and easy emedies” ( emedia ce-
le ia aciliaque). In his wo k On Medicine (De medicina), Aulus Co nelius Celsus
includes, o example, “bu e in ose oil” (bu y um cum osa), “gum acacia dis-
sol ed in inega ” (acacia ex ace o liqua a), “wax-sal e” (emplas um), “liquid
wi h ose oil” ( osa liqua um) and “alum w apped up in wool” (alumen lana ci -
cumda um) among such emedies (Cels. 4.25.2; Eng. ans. Celsus 1935, 439; c .
Plin. Na . 28.59.211). A icus ini ially handled he condi ion “wi hou any pain”
(sine ullis dolo ibus) o h ee mon hs, bu la e he disease en e ed an acu e phase
and symp oms such as “ is ulas discha ging pus” ( is ulae pu is e upe in ), “a
daily inc ease o pain” (dies dolo es acc esce e) and “ e e ” ( eb es) occu ed in
his body. The quali y o A icus’s li e hus de e io a ed adically; he e o e, we can
assume ha he me he condi ion o long- e m unbea able physical su e ing
caused by ad anced cance , p obably wi h minimal hope o cu ing i (c . Plin. Ep.
3.7.2). This illness also s uck a man a an ad anced age. Co nelius Nepos w i es
99
ha A icus was se en y-se en yea s old, and his ad anced age and he ea men
op ions a ailable a he ime, coping wi h such a di icul diagnosis mus ha e
been e y di icul .
In he case o Ma cellinus, we ha e no de ailed desc ip ion o he cou se o
he disease. Seneca me ely desc ibes he pa ien ’s diagnosis in hese wo ds:
Tullius Ma cellinus, a man whom you knew e y well, who in you h was a quie
soul and became old p ema u ely, ell ill o a disease which was by no means
hopeless; bu i was p o ac ed and oublesome, and i demanded much a en ion;
hence he began o hink abou dying (Sen. Ep. 77.5; Eng. ans. 171).
In his case, i was no an incu able disease (non insanabili), which is ex-
plici ly s a ed in he ex , bu an unspeci ied illness, he only symp om o which is
“old p ema u ely” (ci o senex). The au ho pu s mo e emphasis on he social con-
ex o Ma cellinus’s decision o olun a ily end his li e. Since he was a young
man (adulescens) who s ill had his whole li e be o e him, his “p o ac ed” (longo)
and “ oublesome” (moles o) “disease” (mo bo) “demanded much a en ion”
(mul a impe an e). The e o e, he chose o die a he han be dependen on he help
o o he s o e a long pe iod, he eby losing au onomy o e his own li e. Thus,
Ma cellinus mos likely did no eel unbea able pain, bu he was a ionally awa e
ha he quali y o his li e in he u u e would be so educed by he long-las ing
illness ha he had no eason o con inue such an incomple e li e. I he e o e be-
comes deba able whe he we could su icien ly de end he eason o olun a y
eu hanasia in his case i we conside ed he pa ien ’s long- e m physical o psy-
chological su e ing as he main c i e ion.
The desi e o die
The second, e y impo an bioe hical aspec in he p ocess o legal implemen a-
ion o eu hanasia in he Ne he lands is he pa ien ’s eques ha i be done, which
mus be olun a y, well-in o med and well-conside ed. Tha is, he e should be no
doub s abou he pe son’s ue desi e o unde go a olun a y dea h. G eek and
Roman desc ip ions o he ac o suicide enable us o econs uc his eques be-
cause he las momen s o people’s li es a e o en depic ed in li e a y ex s in a
s ylised o m wi h a speci ic d ama ic s uc u e. The i s cha ac e is ic ea u e is
he “ hea icali y o hese scenes”. When eading hem, we may ha e he eeling
ha we a e in he ole o a spec a o wa ching a hea ical pe o mance. A numbe
o cha ac e s en e and lea e he s age, al e na ing in on o us, hus b inging he
en i e d ama ic p ocess o olun a y dying close o us. The second main ea u e
106
o o end one’s li e, and he adminis a ion o his subs ance by a doc o was likely
no hing excep ional (Gou e i ch 1969, 507).
12
Se e al ex s, on he o he hand,
also ell us ha he assis ance o a doc o may no always ha e been necessa y in
a olun a y decision o ake one’s li e, o ha al hough a doc o some imes en e ed
he dying p ocess, his only happened when o he op ions o olun a y dea h
p o ed o be ine ec i e o could no longe be implemen ed o a ious easons.
In he biog aphy o Had ian om The Sc ip o es His o iae Augus ae, o
example, i is men ioned ha when Had ian had “ he u mos disgus o li e” (ul-
imo i ae aedio), he o de ed his sla e o “ o s ab him wi h a swo d” (gladio se
ans igi). This in en ion, howe e , was ul ima ely p e en ed by he summoned
An oninus and he p e ec s. The e o e, la e , a e w i ing his will, “he a emp ed
o kill himsel ” (se cona us occide e), bu hey ook he dagge om him, so ha
his a emp was also le un inished. In he end, “he e en demanded poison om
his physician” (pe ii e enenum a medico), who a he killed himsel han ha e
o ul il his o de o he empe o (His . Aug. Had . 24.8–13; The Sc ip o es His-
o iae Augus ae [1921] 1991, 75–77).
A simila ly well-known li e a y desc ip ion o Seneca’s dea h in Taci us be-
gins by saying o Seneca and his wi e “ hey made he incision in hei a ms wi h
a single cu ” (pos quae eodem ic u b achia e o exol un ). Howe e , since blood
lowed only slowly om Seneca’s old body, he “se e ed as well he a e ies in he
leg and behind he knee” (c u um quoque e popli um enas ab umpi ). Ne e he-
less, dea h s ill “con inued o be p o ac ed and slow” (du an e ac u). The e o e,
he asked his physician iend “ o p oduce he poison” (p o isum enenum), which
he d ank, “bu o no pu pose” ( us a), because his limbs we e al eady icy and
his body was impe ious o he e ec s o he poison (Tac. Ann. 15.63–64; Eng.
ans. Taci us 1937, 317–319).
As can be seen in hese examples, in Had ian’s case he doc o came on o
he scene only a e wo unsuccess ul suicide a emp s, and in Seneca’s case only
a e he dying p ocess was aking oo long and needed o be accele a ed. These
examples hus indica e o us ha in he ancien unde s anding o a i uous li e
he ac o olun a y ending a li e should be done mainly by he pe son himsel , i
ci cums ances allow i . The assis ance o a doc o is seconda y. He may be p esen ,
bu a leas ini ially he does no ha e o ac i ely in e ene in he ac o dying, i i
p oceeds acco ding o he planned scena io. The ee decision o die olun a ily
should hus be comple ed by he ee ac o sel -killing. This acco d be ween in-
en ion and ac is exp essed in bo h o ou li e a y examples mainly in choosing
12
See His . Aug. Had . 24.13; Tac. Ann. 15.64; Apul. Me . 10.8; Plin. Ep. 1.22.8.

107
he means o dea h, which, unlike in mode n imes, is s a a ion. A icus was o
abs ain om ea ing o wo days (biduum cibo se abs inuisse ), hen he e e sud-
denly subsided and he illness became mo e bea able. Ne e heless, he chose o
endu e he s a a ion and a e i e days died (Nep. A . 22.3). Ma cellinus ab-
s ained om ood o h ee days ( iduo abs inui ) and had a en se up in his
bed oom. A ba h ub was b ough o him, in which he lay o a long ime, and om
ime o ime, when ho wa e was pou ed in o i , he slowly died (Sen. Ep. 77.9).
An on J. L. an Hoo , who e y p ecisely s udied he phenomenon o sui-
cide in an iqui y, ound ha he e is a signi ican co ela ion be ween a pe son’s
age and he choice o inducing dea h. In 61 documen ed cases o li e a y desc ip-
ions o suicides among he elde ly in which he me hod o dea h is gi en, as many
as 18 o hem chose s a a ion as a ool o ca ying ou a olun a y depa u e
om li e. As we ha e al eady men ioned, A icus was se en y-se en yea s old,
and al hough Ma cellinus was a young man, Seneca desc ibes him as “old p em-
a u ely” a e he onse o illness. F om a philosophical poin o iew, his me hod
o ending one’s li e was conside ed a mani es a ion o digni y and wisdom. The
p ocedu e o olun a y s a a ion i sel consis ed o a comple e abs aining om
all ood and d ink. I a pe son was able o endu e his p ocess, i was belie ed ha
i should lead o dea h on he se en h day. S a a ion hus demons a ed he will-
powe and de e mina ion o a pe son and was used in on o an admi ing o sym-
pa he ic audience ( an Hoo 1990, 42–43). Pe haps he mos p ominen p opo-
nen o his ype o dea h was he Cy enaic philosophe Hegesias, who is said o
ha e w i en a book called Dea h by S a a ion (Ἀποκαρτερῶν). King P olemy
allegedly banned him om lec u ing in public on he subjec , because many peo-
ple migh commi suicide a e hea ing abou his way o hinking abou dea h
(Cic. Tusc. 1.34.83–84).
The a ge ed e usal o ea is in mode n imes pe cei ed his o ically as a
o m o ci il p o es agains injus ice on he pa o a speci ic, mainly poli ical
au ho i y, wi h he aim o asse ing one’s igh s by h ea ening a publicly obse ed
olun a y dea h (see O’Kee e 1974). We come ac oss i oday only minimally,
and suicides choose o he ways o depa ing his li e (hanging, gunsho o s ab
wounds, in oxica ion, jumping om a heigh , e c.). Howe e , in an iqui y his
me hod was he g ea es possible way o make o he s awa e o a pe son’s ee and
conscious decision o die. This o m o suicidal ac ion was a he same ime un-
hinkable wi hou he help o amily, iends o se an s, who we e ac i ely en-
gaged in his p ocess, because he dying pe son g adually los he s eng h o ac-
i ely manage ce ain ac ions h ough s a a ion. In Ma cellinus’s case, o
108
example, he se an s saw o he o pou ing o ho wa e in o he ba h ub in which
he pa ien was slowly dying. In A icus’s case, al hough his is no explici ly
s a ed in he ex , some se an s mus ha e also been p esen . We could hus liken
suicide in bo h ancien li e a y desc ip ions o mode n assis ed suicide. Al hough
he ac o s in li e a y ex s do die alone, hey do so by hei own decision o e use
ood; howe e , wi hou he ac i e suppo o o he people, his leng hy and a du-
ous p ocess would p obably be e y di icul o pull o .
O in e es is he ac ha , in con as o oday, a philosophe some imes
plays an impo an ole in ac s o suicide, en e ing in ancien li e a y ex s in o he
p ocess o dying in h ee empo al phases. As is e iden om he case o Ma cel-
linus, he philosophe encou aged his iend be o e his dea h no o be a aid o
ake his own li e and lec u ed him wi h philosophical a gumen s ha suppo ed
his iew. He also ensu ed du ing his p epa a o y phase all he p ac ical aspec s
so ha he pe son could unde ake o commi he ac o suicide. I was he philos-
ophe who inally con inced he se an s no o be a aid o ac i ely ake pa in
hei mas e ’s dea h, because his was his olun a y decision and o his eason,
hey had an obliga ion o help him wi h i . He also admonished Ma cellinus him-
sel o ewa d hem inancially o he way hey had ca ed o him h oughou his
li e (Sen. Ep. 77.7–8).
I is also e y p obable ha he philosophe led a ious lea ned deba es wi h
his clien du ing his dea h. In he wo k On T anquili y o Mind (De anquilli a e
animi), o example, an anonymous philosophy eache appea s, who accompa-
nies Iulius Canus, whom he Empe o Claudius had o de ed o be execu ed, o his
dea h. Canus has decided o s udy he u h o he e y end, and his own dea h
se es as an incen i e o him o deepen his philosophical esea ch. The e o e, on
he way o he execu ion g ound, his philosophe asks him: “Wha a e you hink-
ing o now, Canus, o wha s a e o mind a e you in?” (Quid, Cane, nunc cogi as?
Au quae ibi mens es ?), and Canus eplies o him wi h hese wo ds: “I ha e de-
e mined o wa ch whe he he spi i will be conscious ha i is lea ing he body
when ha lee es o momen s comes” (Obse a e, p oposui illo elocissimo mo-
men o an sensu us si animus exi e se) (Sen. T anq. 14.9; Eng. ans. Seneca
[1932] 1965, 271). In he case o s a a ion, he philosophe p obably also encou -
aged he pa ien o main ain his in en ion while also p o iding him wi h philo-
sophical ad ice ha could help him in his p ocess.
The philosophe ’s las ask was pe haps o com o he be ea ed a e he
dea h o a pa ien . A ce ain analogy o his p ocedu e is b ough o us by he igu e
o he p obably S oic philosophe A eus om Alexand ia, who wo ked a he cou
109
o Empe o Augus us and had a g ea in luence on him. In he wo k On Consola-
ion o Ma cia (De consola ione ad Ma ciam) A eus accompanies Li ia D usilla,
he wi e o Empe o Augus us, h ough he p ocess o mou ning a e he dea h o
he son D usus. Since Ne o Claudius D usus Ge manicus died unexpec edly in 9
BC on a mili a y expedi ion agains Ge mania, his mo he did no ha e he oppo -
uni y o say goodbye o him. Seneca men ions ha Li ia D usilla sough ou he
help o A eus a he e y i s a ack o pain, when a pe son eels mis o une mos
in ensely. The philosophe app oached he and ad ised he on how o beha e o-
wa ds iends who we e unsu e whe he o no hey should alk abou he dead
son in on o he o should emain silen . He encou aged he o p ese e he
son’s memo y by ac i ely emembe ing him and no a oiding socie y, as i was
wi h his speci ic a i ude ha she would show o he s ha she could handle such
in e en ions o a e wi h a calm mind (Sen. Ma c. 4.1–5.6). A simila me hod o
consola ion could he e o e ha e aken place among ela i es o people who de-
cided o end hei li es by s a a ion. A philosophe he e, ac ing as a kind o “g ie
he apis ”, ad ised su i o s abou how o cope wi h he loss o someone e y
close o hem, hus aking on he asks ha in mode n imes a e pa o he p o es-
sion o psychologis o p ies .
Conclusion
Bo h analysed desc ip ions o he ac o suicide in Roman li e a u e can be used
o upda e some in e es ing p oblems o cu en bioe hical discussions ela ed o
he issue o assis ed dea h. Fi s o all, i we analyse he na u e o an illness ha
can lead o he decision o commi suicide, hen in A icus’s case he e minal s age
o ec al cance can clea ly be ecognised, which can be conside ed a plausible
eason o ending one’s own li e. In Ma cellinus’s case, his decision was d i en
mo e by he pa ien ’s ea o g adual dependence on o he people, which would
ce ainly be he esul o a long- e m, bu no incu able, illness in he u u e. Sec-
ond, he o mula ion o he in en ion o die in bo h ac o s o he plo is well hough
h ough and olun a y in e ms o con en . The li e a y ex s also p esen hese
decision-making p ocesses o us in he o m o a speci ic d ama ic a , in which
he main cha ac e appea s in he ole o a calm and composed pa ien who pub-
licly decla es his decision o olun a ily die o he o he cha ac e s in he plo
( amily, iends, se an s) and hen deba es wi h hem on his opic. In bo h cases,
he philosophical con ic ions o he li e a y cha ac e s behind he decision o com-
mi suicide can also be seen, hough A icus’s Epicu eanism is less demons able
han Ma cellinus’s S oicism. Thi dly, in bo h li e a y examples he ole o he doc-
110
o is i ele an and gene ally plays no impo an ole o he G eek and Roman
o m o olun a y dying. The pa ien ca ies ou his own dea h, bu in doing so, he
may use he help o o he people in he household. Dea h by s a a ion, which was
also he choice o bo h o ou li e a y p o agonis s, was conside ed one o he mos
app ecia ed means o ending one’s li e. In con as o oday, in some Roman li e -
a y ex s he igu e o a philosophe plays an impo an ole, some imes ac i ely
aking pa in he dying p ocess e en be o e he pa ien ’s dea h, by p o iding him,
o example, wi h philosophical ad ice o by con incing hesi an se an s o he
legi imacy o such an ac . La e , du ing he dying p ocess i sel , he may, o ex-
ample, lead philosophical discussions wi h an educa ed pa ien abou he immo -
ali y o he soul. And inally, a e dea h, he philosophe com o s he su i o s,
helping hem cope wi h he loss o a lo ed one. The wo li e a y examples p e-
sen ed hus b ing us close o he b oade con ex o he cou se o a delibe a e
suicidal ac , which esul s om a pain ul illness o a dec ease in he pa ien ’s u-
u e quali y o li e. The e o e, hey can be an in e es ing sou ce o inspi a ion o
explo ing his opic in a b oade his o ical-philosophical pe spec i e.
Acknowledgemen
The chap e was w i en a he Depa men o Philosophy and Applied Philosophy,
Facul y o A s, Uni e si y o Ss. Cy il and Me hodius in T na a, as pa o VEGA
p ojec No. 2/0163/22.
Re e ences
Celsus. 1935. On Medicine. Books 1–4. Vol. I. T ans. by W. G. Spence . Camb idge: Ha a d
Uni e si y P ess.
Cice o. [1918] 1961. Le e s o A icus. Vol. III. Ed. and ans. by E. O. Wins ed . Camb idge:
Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Co nelius Nepos. [1929] 1984. On he G ea Gene als o Fo eign Na ions. On La in His o i-
ans. T ans. by John C. Rol e. Camb idge: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Diogenes Lae ius. 1925. Li es o Eminen Philosophe s. Vol. II. T ans. by R. D. Hicks. Cam-
b idge: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Du kheim, Émile. 1897. Le suicide. É ude sociologique. Pa is: Félix Alcan.
Engle , Wal e . 1990. “Seneca and he S oic View o Suicide.” The Socie y o Ancien G eek
Philosophy Newsle e 184: 1–20.
E enepoel, Willy. 2004. “The Philosophe Seneca on Suicide.” Ancien Socie y 34: 217–243.
111
F agmen a comico um G aeco um. 1841. Vol. IV. Collegi e disposui Augus us Meineke
Be olini: Typis e impensis G. Reime i.
Gou e i ch, Danielle. 1969. “Suicide among he Sick in Classical An iqui y.” Bulle in o he
His o y o Medicine 43, 6: 501–518.
G i in, Mi iam. 1986. “Philosophy, Ca o, and Roman Suicide: I.” G eece and Rome 33, 1: 64–
77.
Ho nblowe , Simon, and An ony Spaw o h (eds.). [1949] 2012. The Ox o d Classical Dic ion-
a y. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
Ho s all, Nicholas. 1989. Co nelius Nepos. A Selec ion, Including he Li es o Ca o and A icus.
Ox o d: Cla endon P ess.
Liddell, Hen y Geo ge, Robe Sco , and Hen y S ua Jones (eds.). [1843] 1996. A G eek-
English Lexicon. Ox o d: Cla endon P ess.
Masa yk, Ga igue Thomas. 1881. De Selbs mo d als sociale Massene scheinung de mode -
nen Ci ilisa ion. Wien: Ve lag on Ca l Konegen.
Mau ach, G ego . 2006. Geschich e de Römischen Philosophie. Da ms ad : Wissenscha liche
Buchgesellscha .
Miles, S e en H. 2004. The Hippoc a ic Oa h and he E hics o Medicine. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni-
e si y P ess.
O’Kee e, Te ence M. 1984. “Suicide and Sel -S a a ion.” Philosophy 59, 229: 349–363.
Pliny. [1956] 1966. Na u al His o y. Books 24–27. Vol. VII. T ans. by W. H. S. Jones. Cam-
b idge: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Ris , John Michael. 1969. S oic Philosophy. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Russell, Noyes J . 1973. “Seneca on Dea h.” Jou nal o Religion and Heal h 12, 3: 223–240.
Seneca. [1920] 1970. Epis les 66–92. Vol. II. T ans. by Richa d M. Gumme e. Camb idge: Ha -
a d Uni e si y P ess.
Seneca. [1932] 1965. Mo al Essays. Vol. II. T ans. by John W. Baso e. Camb idge: Ha a d
Uni e si y P ess.
Singe , Pe e . [1980] 2011. P ac ical E hics. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Sue onius. [1913] 1979. The Li es o he Caesa s. Vol. I. T ans. by J. C. Rol e. Camb idge:
Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Sumne , Leona d Wayne. 2011. Assis ed Dea h. A S udy in E hics and Law. Ox o d: Ox o d
Uni e si y P ess.
Taci us. 1937. Annals: Books 13–16. T ans. by John Jackson. Camb idge: Ha a d Uni e si y
P ess.

112
The Sc ip o es His o iae Augus ae. [1921] 1991. Vol. I. T ans. by Da id Magie. Camb idge:
Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
an Hoo , An on J. L. 1990. F om Au o hanasia o Suicide. Sel -Killing in Classical An iqui y.
London and New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Williams, Ga e h. 2015. “S yle and Fo m in Seneca’s W i ing.” In The Camb idge Companion
o Seneca, ed. by Shadi Ba sch and Alessand o Schiesa o, 135–149. Camb idge: Camb idge
Uni e si y P ess.
113
Was Hesiod’s Pando a a Pos human?
Ma úš Po ubjak
Abs ac : An impo an componen o Hesiod’s P ome hean my h is a s o y whose ele ance
in associa ion wi h he human enhancemen is o en o e looked. This is he s o y o he i s
woman – Pando a. This chap e will be de o ed o an analysis o his s o y and a possible con-
nec ion wi h he issue o human enhancemen . In i I will i s ou line e y b ie ly he o igin o
his my h and i s ans o ma ions in a diach onic line om an iqui y o he p esen . I will hen
ocus on a de ailed analysis o he con ex and he s o y i sel in he o m we ind i in Hesiod.
I will y o ind answe s o he ollowing ques ions: Why did Zeus allow Pando a o be c ea ed?
Wha did he in end o achie e? Wha quali ies will Pando a ha e? And how will he a i al
among humans change hem? In he conclusion – based on Bos om’s de ini ion o pos human
– I will assess o wha ex en i would be possible o pe cei e Pando a no only as he i s
woman (as she is depic ed in Hesiod), bu also as he i s pos human.
Keywo ds: Pando a. Pos human. Enhancemen . Hesiod. Women.
One o he g ea bioe hical opics o ou ime is he ques ion o human enhance-
men . The desi e o human enhancemen and he ea o he possible isks i may
en ail a e, o cou se, no me ely a mode n phenomenon. They can be ound in
a ious my hs ac oss cul u es. Ou own cul u e, whe e we can ace his opic back
o he my hs p ese ed in he oldes w i en monumen s o ancien cul u e – spe-
ci ically in he epic wo ks o Home and Hesiod – is no di e en . I is in Hesiod
whe e we ind he s o y o P ome heus, who s ole i e om he gods in o de o
b ing i back o people, a s o y ha became “one o he cen al my hs o Wes e n
cul u e” (Mos 2010, lx i).
13
An impo an componen o Hesiod’s P ome hean my h is ano he s o y
whose ele ance in associa ion wi h he human enhancemen is o en o e looked.
This is he s o y o he i s woman – Pando a. This chap e will be de o ed o an
analysis o his s o y and a possible connec ion wi h he issue o human enhance-
men . In i I will i s ou line e y b ie ly he o igin o his my h and i s ans o -
ma ions in a diach onic line om an iqui y o he p esen . I will hen ocus on a
de ailed analysis o he con ex and he s o y i sel in he o m we ind i in Hesiod.
I will y o ind answe s o he ollowing ques ions: Why did Zeus allow Pando a
o be c ea ed? Wha did he in end o achie e? Wha quali ies will Pando a ha e?
13
Rega ding he issue o ancien inspi a ions o la e echnologies and pos humanism, see, o example,
Mayo (2018); Chesi and Spiegel (2019); Sanio is, Mohammadi and Galassi (2024).
114
And how will he a i al among humans change hem? In he conclusion – based
on Bos om’s de ini ion o pos human – I will assess o wha ex en i would be
possible o pe cei e Pando a no only as he i s woman (as she is depic ed in
Hesiod), bu also as he i s pos human.
⸞ ⸞ ⸞
Hesiod is usually conside ed a con empo a y o ea ly ollowe o Home , he mos
amous G eek epic poe . The wo k o bo h poe s can be loca ed in ime “some-
whe e owa ds he end o he 8 h cen u y o he e y beginning o he 7 h cen u y
BC” (Mos 2010: xx ). The c ea ion my h o he i s woman is encoun e ed in
bo h o Hesiod’s key epics, he Theogony (Th. 570–612) and he Wo ks and Days
(Op. 54–105). In bo h wo ks, his s o y is pa o he b oade P ome hean my h as
e ibu ion o P ome heus’s he o i e, and in bo h, a Zeus’s command, He-
phaes us models he i s woman om he ea h (gaiēs; Th. 571, Op. 70) in he
o m o e e end maiden, and he esul ing “ou i ” o his ma ellous peace o
wo k is p o ided by A hena. Finally, in bo h cases, his “plas ic woman” (plas ē
gunaika, Th. 513) is p esen ed as a woe o mo als (Th. 592, Op. 83).
Howe e , he e a e mo e di e ences han simila i ies be ween he wo
my hs abou he i s woman. In Theogony, 14 e ses a e de o ed o he desc ip-
ion o he c ea ion o he i s woman (Th. 571–584). The i s woman he e is no
gi en a name and, apa om Zeus as he “o de e ”, only wo gods ake pa in he
c ea ion – Hephaes us and A hena. Hephaes us c ea es he shape o he i s
woman om clay. A hena d esses he in sil e y clo hes and ado ns he wi h ga -
lands o esh buds. She places a golden headband a ound he head on which He-
phaes us has ca ed wild animals. When Zeus hen p esen s he o he gods and
humans, hey a e all as onished by he beau y o he jewels. The i s woman he e
esembles a e aco a s a ue mo e han a li ing being, since Hesiod is mainly con-
ce ned wi h he isual appea ance – om clo hing o o namen s.
In Wo ks and Days, Hesiod desc ibes he c ea ion o he i s woman in 23
e ses (Op. 60–82), which is nea ly wice as many as in Theogony. I is he e ha
he i s woman also ecei es he name: Pando a. The main “o de e ” is again
Zeus, and he e we again mee Hephaes us and A hena, bu hey now also gi e
Pando a p ope ies no men ioned in Theogony. The c ea o o he basic design is
again Hephaes us, who, howe e , adds a human oice and human s eng h o he
mix u e o ea h and wa e igh om he s a . A hena no only d esses he , bu
also eaches he c a s, speci ically he ypical and echnologically sophis ica ed
emale skill o he pe iod – wea ing b igh ly colou ed ab ics. O he goddesses
also join in he deco a ing Pando a: he G aces, Pe suasion and he Seasons.
115
Aph odi a sheds g ace and pain ul desi e and limb-de ou ing ca es a ound he
head. In he end, he messenge o he gods also plays a key ole; he cunning
He mes se s a dog’s mind in o he b eas : lies, guile ul wo ds and a hie ish cha -
ac e . He mes inally gi es speech o he i s woman and gi es he he name Pan-
do a (All-Gi ), “since all hose who ha e hei mansions on Olympus had gi en
he a gi – a woe o men o li e on b ead” (Op. 81–82). The signi icance o he
o namen s and a ibu es ha Pando a ecei es will be analysed in de ail la e . Fo
now, we will only s a e ha , in con as o he beau i ully deco a ed e aco a
s a ue o Theogony in Wo ks and Days, he e s ands a li ing woman ado ned in
beau i ul clo hing, b imming wi h speech, oice, li e o ce and skills. He pe son-
ali y adia es cha m and desi e, and he cha ac e allows he o delibe a ely and
cle e ly manipula e hose a ound he o he ad an age.
The my h o P ome heus e y soon became he subjec o many adap a ions.
Among he oldes , we can a leas men ion Aeschylus’s P ome heus ilogy, o
which only he i s play – P ome heus Bound – has su i ed, and he so-called
P o ago as’ my h in Pla o’s dialogue P o ago as (320d–322d). Ancien li e a y
adi ion la e used he s o y o Pando a in he o m o wo main mo i s. The i s
is he mo i o he ja ha Pando a ecei ed om Zeus as a wedding gi , om
which all e ils lew ou when he lid was opened, lea ing only hope a he bo om.
This mo i is indi ec ly e e ed o in some o Aesop’s ables (Fab. 525, 526), he
a chaic ly ic poe Theognis (ll. 1135–1150), and Aeschylus’s play P ome heus
Bound (ll. 248–251). La e au ho s p esen Pando a in he con ex o Py ha
(daugh e o Pando a and Epime heus) and he husband Deucalion, who su i ed
he lood sen by Zeus o he human ace (Apollodo us 1,7,2; S abo 9,5,23;
Pseudo-Hyginus, Fabulae 142). Pando a also apidly gained popula i y in he ine
a s and sculp u e. He oldes depic ion is conside ed o be a black- igu e ampho a
a ibu ed o he Diosphos Pain e (525–475 BC). A depic ion o Pando a – usually
in connec ion wi h how Hephaes us is c ea ing he – is also ound in se e al o he
ase pain ings om he classical pe iod. Pausanias, a G eek a elle o ci ca he
2nd cen u y A.D. in his Desc ip ion o G eece (1,24,7) men ioned ha he scene
o he bi h o Pando a was pic u ed in elie on he massi e pedes al o he colos-
sal gold and i o y s a ue o A hena inside he Pa henon.
14
This would indica e
ha he s o y o Pando a was pa o he A henian cul associa ed wi h A hena and
Hephaes us – pa ons o a s and c a s and key gods o classical A hens.
14
The depic ion o Pando a in he classical pe iod is analysed in de ail by Mayo (2018, 160–175), c .
Shapi o (1994, 66–67).
122
He e we mus s op and ake a b ie jou ney in o Home . The i s woman o
Theogony and Pando a in Wo ks and Days is no he only awe-inspi ing maiden
c ea ed by Hephaes us. We also come ac oss a simila c ea ion o his di ine
blacksmi h in The Iliad. Le us quo e he whole ele an passage: “…and he e
mo ed swi ly o suppo hei lo d [Hephaes us] handmaids made o gold in he
semblance o li ing gi ls. In hem is unde s anding (noos) in hei minds, and in
hem speech (audē) and s eng h (s henos), and hey know cunning handiwo k
(e ga) by gi o he immo al gods” (Il. 18, 417–421).
22
When we compa e his
passage wi h he jus -men ioned desc ip ion o he c ea ion o Pando a in Wo ks
and Days, we ind ha all he a ibu es o he golden maidens also apply o Pan-
do a. Hephaes us igh om he s a equips he wi h he abili y o speak (audē)
as well as s eng h (s henos) (Op. 61), and A hena gi es he wi h ins uc ion in
wo ks (e ga) (Op. 63–64).
23
The abili y o unde s and (noos) is also ound in Pan-
do a’s mind – howe e , in he Wo ks and Days she does no ecei e i om He-
phaes us bu om He mes, and wi h he cha ac e is ic o a “dog’s mind” (Op. 68).
I we pass o e his de ail (which we will come back o), hen bo h Pando a and
he golden maidens ha e he same “ echnical speci ica ions” – hey a e capable o
hinking and communica ing, and hey ha e he s eng h and abili y o do wo k.
I Pando a had emained wi h only hese ai s, she would ha e been jus ano he
and oid, o a he gynoid, o he ancien my h-making imagina ion.
24
The h ee skills men ioned – hinking, speech and he abili y o pe o m
complex ac s – we he e call echnical. Le us now examine in de ail he emaining
22
We mus poin ou o he sake o accu acy ha in Home ’s ex Hephaes us is no di ec ly men ioned
as he c ea o o maidens. Howe e , he golden maidens appea in he pa in which The is isi s him on
Olympus. She en e s his o ge a he momen when he is inishing wen y au oma ic ipods ha a e o
en e he assembly o he gods and e u n by hemsel es (Il. 18, 369–381; c . he golden and sil e dogs
ha he c ea ed wi h his cunning skill o gua d he palace o he Phaeacians in Od. 7, 91–93). I is hus
highly likely ha he maidens a e ano he o his ma ellous au oma ic c ea ions.
23
In he case o he golden maidens in he Iliad, only gods in gene al a e men ioned. Howe e , A hena
would be a p ime candida e he e, oo, simila o he Odyssey whe e Home desc ibes he excellen qual-
i ies o Phaeacian women: “so a e he women cunning wo ke s ( echnēssai) a he loom; o A hene has
gi en o hem abo e all o he knowledge o beau i ul handiwo k (e ga), and excellen cha ac e ” (Od.
7, 111).
24
Ad ienne Mayo is con inced ha “Hesiod’s language makes Pando a ‘essen ially indis inguishable’
om he golden au oma a desc ibed by Home . Pando a ‘begins as ine ma e – in his case no gold
bu clay’ – and she becomes a ‘humanoid machine’ endowed wi h mind, speech, and s eng h, knowledge
o c a s om he gods, and he abili y o ini ia e ac ion” (2018, 160). E en i we o e look he o he
p ope ies ha Pando a acqui es in Wo ks and Days and which will be discussed sho ly, Mayo ’s a gu-
men has a undamen al law. The key ma e in compa ison o golden au oma a and Pando a is a ma e .
The gold om which he maidens a e made in Home can be unde s ood as an ine ma e ial, bu clay
(gaea) and wa e (hudō ) a e ce ainly no . These componen s a e he bea e s o li e and enable Pan-
do a’s e ili y. In mode n wo ding, Pando a in Hesiod is ce ainly no a “humanoid machine”, bu a he
a p oduc o “biological enginee ing”.

123
skills and quali ies ha Pando a will be gi en. Le us begin wi h a seemingly i -
ial ai – he beau i ul appea ance (kalos eidos; Op. 63). I s pu pose and he abil-
i ies connec ed wi h i a e indica ed by he names o he goddesses who coope a e
in i s c ea ion. Aside om he al eady men ioned A hena, hese a e: “ he god-
desses G aces (Cha i es) and queenly Pe suasion (Pei ho) placed golden jewel-
le y all a ound on he body and he beau i ul-hai ed Seasons (Ho ai) c owned he
all a ound wi h sp ing lowe s; and Pallas A hena i ed he whole o namen a ion
o he body” (Op. 73–76). In o de o unde s and wha Pando a acqui es h ough
hese goddesses, le ’s ake a close look a hem.
The i s goddesses men ioned a e he G aces (Cha i es). In Theogony, Hes-
iod men ions he G aces as he daugh e s o Zeus and Oceanus’s daugh e Eu-
ynome (B oad-minded). The e a e h ee o hem: Aglaea (Splendo ), Euph osyne
(Joy) and Thalia (Good Chee / Fes i i y) and “ om hei eyes desi e, he limb-
mel e , ickles down when hey look” (Th. 907–911). Ano he goddess who co-
ope a es in he c ea ion o Pando a is Pe suasion (Pei ho), he daugh e o Ocea-
nus and Te hys. The las o he goddesses men ioned a e he Seasons (Ho ai) –
“They make e e y hing ipe (ὡραῖος) and hence beau i ul” (Ve denius 1985, 56).
I also needs o be ecalled ha , acco ding o Theogony (901–903), he Ho ai a e
he daugh e s o Zeus and his second wi e Themis (Jus ice). As wi h he G aces,
he e a e also h ee o hem. They a e called Eunomia (Law ulness), Dike (Jus ice)
and Ei ene (Peace), and hey a e he dei ies “who ca e o he wo ks o mo al
human beings” (Th. 903). This is in ag eemen wi h he na a i e ha Hesiod e-
pea s mo e han once in Wo ks and Days, ha he gods ewa d wi h p ospe i y
hose who ac s jus ly, acco ding o law and in peace (Op. 225–247, 274–285). All
he ai s bes owed by he Cha i es, Pei ho and he Ho ai a e ul ima ely b ough
oge he in a g ace ul o de by he wise Pallas A hena (Op. 76). We hus ha e he
i s impo an complex ea u e o Pando a – he pe suasi eness o ha es es i-
als – a joy ul celeb a ion o enjoying he abundance o he peace ully acqui ed
ui s o ag icul u al labou .
25
Ano he o he key goddesses who con ibu es o Pando a’s equipping is
Aph odi e, who ensu es ha Pando a adia es “g ace (cha is) and pain ul desi e
and limb-de ou ing ca es (po hos)” h oughou he whole pe sonali y (Op. 65–
66). This is a di icul passage o ansla e,
26
in which he main concep s a e po hos
25
Le us ecall ha acco ding o Theogony, Pando a does no come o he house o man wi h bane ul
Penie (po e y), bu wi h a desi e o Ko os – weal h and abundance (Th. 593). Le us u he no e ha
while he i s woman o Theogony eminds us o a kind o Paleoli hic goddess wi h he igidi y and
headband wi h ca ed wild animals, in Wo ks and Days she appea s o us mo e like a Neoli hic goddess.
26
Fo commen s on he , see e.g., Ve denius (1985, 51–52).
124
– longing, yea ning, eg e , lo e and desi e and cha is, a wo d we encoun e ed in
he pe sonalised o m o Cha i es (G aces) abo e. Cha is can be ansla ed as ou -
wa d g ace o a ou , beau y. I also has o he impo an meanings, howe e : kind-
ness, goodwill o o owa ds one on he pa o gi e , and on he pa o he e-
cei e sense o a ou ecei ed, hank ulness, g a i ude. Cha is in his sense “is
bo h he ini ial a ou ha one pe son does o ano he and he g a i ude o ecog-
ni ion ha is shown in e u n” (Pea son 1962, 86).
27
I we we e o combine he
e ms po hos and cha is in o a single quali y, hen we could say ha Aph odi e
endows Pando a wi h cha isma, making he a cha isma ic being, someone o
whom we look up wi h longing because she possesses quali ies ha we admi e.
Someone om whom we ecei e kindness and o whom we eel an essen ial need
o exp ess ou g a i ude.
The las key playe in he c ea ion o Pando a’s cha ac e is he cunning
He mes – he messenge o he gods, a g ea o a o and lia , he son o Zeus and
Maia (Th. 938–939).
28
Zeus en us ed him wi h pu ing a dog’s mind (kuneos
noos) and a hie ish cha ac e (epiklopos ē hos) in o he woman’s na u e. (Op. 67–
68). The exp ession kyneos noos (dog's mind) is usually ansla ed as “shameless”
o “impuden mind”.
29
I am con inced ha Hesiod speci ies he meaning o his
ph ase a ew e ses la e , when he desc ibes how He mes did i : “Then in o he
b eas he in e media y, he kille o A gus, se lies (pseudea) and guile ul wo ds
(haima logoi) and a hie ish cha ac e (epiklopos ē hos), by he plans o deep-
hunde ing Zeus” (Op. 77–79). The hie ish cha ac e ecu s in bo h cases. Ins ead
o a “dog’s mind”, howe e , wo skills a e p esen ed he e – lying and la e y. The
“dog’s mind” hus appea s o be he abili y o ac ically al e na e la e ing wi h
decep ion.
The las hing ha He mes pu s in o Pando a is speech ( ōnē) (Op. 79). We
came ac oss he abili y o speak a he beginning, when Hephaes us gi es Pando a
a oice. In Hephaes us’s case, he e m audē is used, in He mes’s case ōnē. These
a e synonyms; howe e , he wo d audē means oice a he in he sense o some-
hing ha makes a sound, some hing “audible” (audē can be made, o example,
by a bows ing). The wo d ōnē is used o he sound made by he lungs and h oa ,
and i o e whelmingly deno es human speech ha is he bea e o some mean-
ing.
30
Hephaes us gi es Pando a a oice as a “ echnical” ea u e, whe eas He mes
27
C . Liddel, Sco and Jones (1996: s. . πόθος, s. . χάρις).
28
Fo He mes’s cha ac e , see e.g., Ke ényi (1996, 126–132), Yona (2016, 367).
29
See Ve denius (1985, 53), whe e examples om Home a e also gi en, C . Liddel, Sco and Jones
(1996, s. . κύνεος).
30
C . Liddel, Sco and Jones (1996, s. . αὐδή, s. . φωνή).
125
as a social-communica ion skill. He mes hus comple es he wo k o he o he
gods and c ea es om Pando a a skilled communica o capable o s a egically
hiding he in en ions and winning o he s o e o he goals.
31
We abo e called he
quali ies ha Hephaes us and A hena gi e Pando a a he beginning o he s o y
echnical (s eng h, skill in wo k, oice). The es o he skills she ge s om o he
gods and goddesses a e gene ally social skills – pe suasi eness, cha isma, a cle e
na u e and he abili y o la e , mislead and pe suade wi h speech.
In he end, Zeus s ill has o ge Pando a among he people, so he sends
He mes o ake he o Epime heus, who o ge s his b o he ’s wa ning ne e o
accep any gi om Zeus and becomes he i s o accep his new e sion o man
– a woman – in o his house (Op. 89, Th. 513), hus c ea ing, o a he con i ming,
he ins i u ion o ma iage. A “dow y” also comes wi h Pando a, which she e-
cei es om Zeus – a la ge ja , which, i opened, eleases pain ul diseases ha
b ing dea h, mise able su e ing and o he e ils ha silen ly a ack people, since
Zeus has aken away hei oice (Op. 100–104). Only he gi o Hope (Elpis)
emains in he ja , which did no ha e ime o ly ou due o Zeus’s will.
32
Th ough-
ou his en i e s o y, P ome heus and Epime heus a e e iden ly close o people.
P ome heus’s a emp o ou wi Zeus, howe e , will ul ima ely b ing mis o une
o people. The cascade o ca as ophes is igge ed by his di ision o he sac i ice
and culmina es in he ecei ing o Pando a wi h he “dow y” in o Epime heus’s
house. The second gene a ion o gods is no ma ch o he hi d gene a ion. In
sho , as Hesiod concludes he whole P ome heus-Pando a s o y: “Thus i is no
possible in any way o e ade he mind o Zeus (Dios noon)” (Op. 105).
31
On his poin , I would again like o disag ee wi h A ienne Mayo ’s claim: “Pando a is endowed wi h
a low so o in elligence (He mes gi es he he “mind o a emale dog” acco ding o Hesiod, Wo ks and
Days 67). I is unclea whe he Pando a has he abili y o lea n, choose, o ac au onomously. He only
mission is o open he ja o all human mis o une” (2018, 160). He mes is one o he sma es gods, and
wha Pando a is endowed wi h a e highly sophis ica ed men al skills. As o Mayo ’s doub in ega d o
lea ning, i Pando a we e no capable o lea ning, hen A hena would no be able “ o each he c a s
(e ga didaskēsai), o wea e ichly wo ked clo h” (Op. 64). The ques ion o decision-making and au on-
omous ac ion canno be answe ed di ec ly om he ex . Howe e , since Pando a ecei es noos om
He mes, albei wi h he adjec i e “dog-like” (which a he indica es he o ien a ion o he mind han he
pe o mance i sel ), i is highly likely ha she can make he own decisions. Compa e, o example, he
e se om Op. 105, which we quo e in he ollowing pa ag aph, which says: “Thus i is no possible in
any way o e ade he mind o Zeus (Dios noon),” whe e Dios noon also means his decision. Rega ding
he a ious meanings and unc ions o noos in Home , see Snell (1960, 12–19), Liddel, Sco and Jones
(1996, s. . νόος).
32
The cha ac e and ole o Hope in Hesiod’s wo k is he subjec o long academic deba e. I ha e dis-
cussed i in mo e de ail in an a icle Po ubjak (2023, 249–250), see also, e.g., Clay (2010, 102–104),
Ve nan (2006, 42–43), Ve denius (1985, 66–71), Noo den (2015, 54), Sca ne a, (2016, 20), Mayo
(2018, 175–177).
126
We will now a emp o e eal wha Zeus’s in en ions ac ually we e and
how he changed humani y h ough Pando a. Fi s , howe e , le ’s ake a look a
how he li e o people in he p e- and pos -Pando a pe iods appea ed om he
pe spec i e o he P ome hean-Pando a my h.
33
I seems ha be o e Pando a peo-
ple did no know he necessi y o (sexual) ep oduc ion o hei species. They we e
ei he long-li ed descendan s o he Ash- ee Nymphs and Gian s, as Clay (2010)
sugges s, o hey we e bo n di ec ly om he ea h, as indica ed by he my h o
he golden gene a ion and e e ences o o he o iginal s o ies abou he i s peo-
ple. Pando a is c ea ed om he ea h (o he wise she could no gi e bi h), and
wi h he a i al she con eys i s p oc ea i e abili y o people while also dis ancing
hem om his o iginal ch honic powe ( hus weakening i ). Ano he di e ence is
connec ed wi h he ea h/soil. P io o Pando a, people did no need o make any
e o o ensu e hei li elihood. On he one hand, hei sus enance was no hidden
om hem, and he ea h i sel p o ided hem wi h e e y hing hey needed; on he
o he hand, hey we e no o ced o suppo hei amilies. Wi h Pando a, he in-
s i u ion o ma iage inally comes o people, and i combines he abili y o p o-
c ea e wi h he need o ensu e sus enance while b inging in o people’s li es he
s uggle o economic p ospe i y and he social s a us o amilies and clans.
Ano he key di e ence be ween li e be o e and a e Pando a is he echnai.
I seems ha he need o he echnai i s eme ge du ing he e en s ha c ea e
Pando a he sel . The concealmen o sus enance gi es ise o he need o ag icul-
u al and comme cial skills. Zeus’s decision o ha e people sac i ice o he gods
and P ome heus’s di ision o he spoils sugges he need o he a o i ual and
di ina ion,
34
as well as he a o cooking ood. The aking and e u ning o i e
sugges s he disco e ing o echnologies associa ed wi h wo king wi h i e and
making he ools needed o ag icul u e and he s uggle o esou ces. Pando a
he sel comes among people equipped wi h he sophis ica ed a o wea ing clo h.
The inal eleasing o deadly diseases, su e ings and e ils indica es he need o
he disco e y o he healing a s, including he a o he Muses’ se an s – poe s
– whose singing dissol es so ow and helps o o ge all su e ing (Th. 94–100).
Ano he key issue comes o people wi h Pando a – complex social ies.
When we spoke o he abili ies ha Pando a go om he goddesses and gods a
Zeus’s command, we di ided hem in o echnical and social. I is he social skills
ha en e he wo ld h ough Pando a ha will in e es us now. Pando a ep esen s
33
The issue o how o cha ac e ise basic human quali ies is add essed, o example, by T. Ká oly (2024).
34
Di ina ion om he en ails o sac i iced animals is among he mos widesp ead di ina ion echniques
o (no only G eek) an iqui y.
127
a highly complex social being. On he one hand, he Cha i es, Pei ho and he Ho ai
pa icipa e in he c ea ion. As men ioned, hese goddesses a e close o Hesiod’s
ag a ian ac i i y, which, due o i s complexi y (a leas du ing he ime o ha es -
ing and p ocessing he c op), equi es he coope a ion o he whole g oup. The
h ee Ho ai – Law ulness, Jus ice and Peace – a e he basic condi ion o coope -
a ion ha b ings p ospe i y o a communi y. On he o he hand, a e he gi s o
He mes – a cunning na u e and he abili y o speak pe suasi ely – which, h ough
la e y and decep ion, enable indi idual in e es s o be p omo ed a he expense
o he whole. This is all c owned by he i esis ible cha isma ha Aph odi e gi es
Pando a. Pando a hus becomes he bea e o he quali ies o a cha isma ic poli i-
cian – she balances on he edge be ween he own in e es s (o he amily o clan)
and he in e es s o he en i e communi y.
Zeus is a e y skilled poli ician himsel and secu es his powe no only
h ough o ce, bu also h ough a -sigh ed poli ical alliances and decisions.
35
He
will also use his cunning on beings bo n and close o he second gene a ion o
gods – humans. P e-Pando ian humani y is an “ou da ed e sion” o li e in an
age go e ned by he hi d gene a ion o gods. Since Zeus has no in en ion o ex-
e mina e humani y o h ow i o E ebus wi h a hunde bol , he c ea es i s “up-
g ade” h ough Pando a, a less dange ous e sion adap ed o his o m o go e n-
men and goals. He weakens hei closeness o he ea h and hei o iginal s eng h
wi h diseases and he necessi y o ep oduce, eed hemsel es and o e bu n o -
e ings o he gods. Bu he also allows hem o acqui e new skills in su i al ech-
niques. Th ough Pando a, he ins i u ion o he amily is in oduced among peo-
ple, and in an ag a ian socie y, hese amilies a e o ced o coope a e, o uni e in o
clans and illages. This c ea es complex social ies, o which Pando a is u nished
wi h adequa e skills. In he end, Zeus c ea es a poli ical communi y om people.
Pando a hus success ully leads humani y om he o de o he second o he o de
o he hi d gene a ion o gods.
⸞ ⸞ ⸞
A he conclusion, le us look a Hesiod’s Pando a om a pos humanis pe spec-
i e and answe he ollowing ques ion: Can Pando a be unde s ood as a pos hu-
man? We will ake he de ini ion o a being called a pos human om Bos om’s
ex Why I Wan o be a Pos human When I G ow Up. In he in oduc ion o his
ex , Bos om de ines a pos human as ollows: “I shall de ine a pos human as a
being ha has a leas one pos human capaci y. By a pos human capaci y, I mean
a gene al cen al capaci y g ea ly exceeding he maximum a ainable by any
35
C . Hesiod (Th. 390–403; 644–663).

128
cu en human being wi hou ecou se o new echnological means” (2008, 107).
Bos om hen de ines h ee gene al cen al capaci ies: heal h span, cogni ion and
emo ion. Fo ou pu poses, we mus also s ake ou a ame o e e ence agains
which we will judge Pando a as a pos human. Humani y be o e Pando a is o e ed
as such a ame. Fo his eason, we ha e abo e e alua ed he li es o people
be o e and a e Pando a.
Be o e we assess o wha ex en Pando a and humani y a e Pando a ul il
he h ee gene al cen al capaci ies lis ed by Bos om, we will make h ee p elim-
ina y ema ks. Fi s , Pando a is c ea ed as a model ha sui s he hi d gene a ion
o gods and he jus o de a anged by Zeus. I is easonable o assume ha wi hou
his “upg ade” humani y in he hi d age would likely ha e no had a chance o
adap o he new condi ions and would be h ea ened wi h ex inc ion. Second, he
concep o Pando a is in en ed by Zeus himsel and i s implemen a ion in ol ed
nine goddesses (A hena, Aph odi e, Pei ho, he h ee G aces and he h ee Ho ai)
and wo gods (Hephaes us and He mes), all o whom a e ei he di ec descendan s
o Zeus o a e ully loyal o him. I can be easonably assumed ha all he (di ine)
p ope ies g an ed by hem su pass he abili ies o people o he p e-Pando a pe-
iod. Thi d, Pando a is c ea ed such ha he o iginal people can ep oduce wi h
he .
36
The e o e, i makes sense o assume ha he p ope ies we e g adually dis-
semina ed among people h ough he descendan s. In gene al, i can be s a ed ha
Pando a – as a p oduc o di ine c ea ion – exceeds he capaci ies o people o he
p e-Pando a pe iod and is an enhanced e sion o hem.
Le us now e alua e how Pando a and he o sp ing sa is y Bos om’s h ee
gene al cen al capaci ies. The i s is heal h span. Hesiod does no s a e how old
Pando a li ed o be, no in wha s a e o heal h. Gi en he quali ies di ec ly sup-
plied by he goddesses and gods, howe e , i can be assumed ha she he sel was
e y well in his a ea. The si ua ion is di e en wi h people hemsel es, howe e .
Be o e Pando a, people li ed a om e ils, oil and diseases. Howe e , a e he
opening o he ja , pain ul diseases ca ying dea h, bleak su e ing and o he e ils
ha silen ly a ack people sp ead in o he wo ld. The e o e, he i s cen al capac-
i y emains nega i e, and Pando a does no b ing imp o emen in people’s heal h
span, bu in ac , i s de e io a ion.
The second gene al cen al capaci y is cogni ion. Wi h Pando a, he ech-
nique o wea ing comes among people, o minimally i s g ea imp o emen ,
36
“Fo om he [Pando a] comes he ace o emale women” (Op. 590). Pando a’s o sp ing was he
subjec o Hesiod’s now los ex called he Ca alogue o Women o Ehoiai, which was appa en ly “a
sys ema ic p esen a ion in i e books o a la ge numbe o G eek legenda y he oes and episodes, begin-
ning wi h he i s human beings and con inuing down o Helen” (Mos 2010, il).
129
which he goddess o c a s he sel , A hena, eaches he . The changed li ing con-
di ions, as we men ioned abo e, will e en ually lead people o de elop skills ha
p obably did no exis in he p e-Pando ian pe iod, since hey we e no needed.
These a e ag icul u al and comme cial skills, he a s o i ual and di ina ion, ech-
niques gene ally associa ed wi h he use o i e – om cooking ood o making
ag icul u al ools and p obably weapons – hen he medical and pe o ming a s,
and inally p obably poli ical a s, in connec ion wi h he need o balance he in-
e es s o one's own amily and he wide communi y. Rega ding he second cen-
al capaci y, he e o e, we can s a e a signi ican imp o emen ha a exceeds
he capabili ies o people in he p e-Pando ian pe iod.
The hi d cen al capaci y – emo ions – is he mos complica ed o assess.
I we ake he people o he golden gene a ion, who did no age, did no wo k,
li ed in cons an es i i ies and we e lo ed by he gods, as a e e ence poin , hen
he pos -Pando ian pe iod is a clea de e io a ion o he si ua ion. Howe e , wi h
Pando a and he new condi ions, a mo e complex social ies appea among peo-
ple, condi ioned by he c ea ion o he amily. The p esence o child en p obably
inc eased he abili y o empa hise, and he necessi y o coope a e b ough s onge
bonds o iendship and mu ual de o ion. The new complexi y o social ies could
ha e been a ac o ha ul ima ely b ough abou an imp o emen in he abili y o
enjoy li e and espond app op ia ely o he li es o o he people, which a e, in
Bos om’s iew, he main cha ac e is ics o his cen al capaci y (2008, 108). On
he o he hand, he inc eased gap be ween people and he gods, he necessi y o
secu e a li elihood and he unp edic abili y o e ils could ha e signi ican ly wo s-
ened people’s emo ional se ings and hei beha iou owa ds o he s. I he e o e
lea e he answe o he ques ion o imp o emen in his cen al capaci y as unde-
cided.
The abo e-quo ed Bos om de ini ion o a pos human s a es ha i is a being
who has a leas one pos human capaci y, i.e., one o he cen al capaci ies ha
su passes he maximum achie able by any cu en human being. O he h ee cen-
al capaci ies men ioned, cogni ion is he one shown o be clea ly imp o ed in
connec ion wi h Pando a (in he con ex o he capaci ies o people be o e and
a e Pando a). The s a emen o he imp o emen o cogni i e capaci y is in line
wi h he P ome hean my h, as we unde s and i oday – as a desi e o imp o e-
men and he (mos ly cogni i e) abili y o ealise his imp o emen . In my in e -
p e a ion, howe e , he main bea e o his abili y is no P ome heus, bu Pando a.
She is endowed wi h all he la es capabili ies o he hi d gene a ion o gods and
130
dissemina es hem among people wi h he a i al. In his sense, I would da e o
desc ibe Pando a as he ( i s my hological) pos human.
Acknowledgemen
The chap e was w i en a he Depa men o Philosophy and Applied Philosophy,
Facul y o A s, Uni e si y o Ss. Cy il and Me hodius in T na a, as pa o VEGA
p ojec No. 2/0163/22.
Re e ences
Bos om, Nick. 2008. “Why I Wan o be a Pos human When I G ow Up.” In Medical Enhance-
men and Pos humani y, ed. by Be Go dijn and Ru h Chadwick, 107–137. Do d ech :
Sp inge . DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/978-1-4020-8852-0.
Chesi, Giulia Ma ia, and F ancesca Spiegel (eds.). 2019. Classical Li e a u e and Pos human-
ism. London and New Yo k: Bloomsbu y Publishing.
Clay, Jenny S aus. 2010. Hesiod’s Cosmos. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Fe ando, F ancesca. 2015. “O Pos human Bo n: Gende , U opia and he Pos human in Films
and TV.” In The Palg a e Handbook o Pos humanism in Film and Tele ision, ed. by Michael
Hauskelle , Thomas D. Philbeck, and Cu is D. Ca bonell, 269–278. London: Palg a e Mac-
millan. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.1057/9781137430328.
Ká oly, Tomáš. 2024. “The Uni e sals o Human Na u e: A Me hod o Thei De ec ion h ough
Scien i ic E idence and Li e a y Fic ion.” P o-Fil 25, 2: 51–65. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.5817/
p 24-2-39121.
Ke ényi, Ka l. 1996. My ologie Řeků I: Přběhy bohů a lid. P ague: Oikoymenh.
King, Robe . 2014. “A Regimen o Mons ous Women: Female Ho o A che ypes and Li e
His o y Theo y.” E olu iona y Beha io al Sciences 9, 3: 170–185. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/
10.1037/ ebs0000037.
Liddel, Hen y Geo ge, Robe Sco , and Hen y S ua Jones. 1996. G eek-English Lexicon.
Ox o d: Cla endon P ess.
Mayo , Ad ienne. 2018. Gods and Robo s: My hs, Machines and Ancien D eams o Technol-
ogy. P ince on and Ox o d: P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Mos , Glenn W. 2010. Hesiod I: Theogony, Wo ks and Days, Tes imonia. Camb idge and Lon-
don: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
Muelle , Melissa. 2016. “The Disease o Mo ali y in Hesiod’s Theogony: P ome heus, He a-
kles, and he In en ion o Kleos.” Ramus 45, 1: 1–17. DOI:10.1017/ mu.2016.1.
131
Mu ay, Augus us T., and William F. Wya . 1999. Home : Iliad Books 1–12. Camb idge and
London: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess (LCL 170).
Mu ay, Augus us T., and William F. Wya . 1999. Home : Iliad Books 13–24. Camb idge and
London: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess (LCL 171).
Mu ay, Augus us T., and Geo ge E. Dimock. 1998. Home : Odyssey Books 1–12. Camb idge
and London: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess (LCL 104).
Mu ay, Augus us T., and Geo ge E. Dimock. 1998. Home : Odyssey Books 13–24. Camb idge
and London: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess (LCL 105).
Noo den, Helen Van. 2015. Playing Hesiod: The ‘My h o he Races’ in Classical An iqui y.
Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Pea son, Lionel. 1962. Popula E hics in Ancien G eece. S an o d: S an o d Uni e si y P ess.
Po ubjak, Ma úš. 2023. “Why Did Theognis No Lea e Respec and Re ibu ion in His ‘Hope
Elegy’?” Filozo ia 78, 4: 245–258. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.31577/ ilozo ia.2023.78.4.1.
Po ubjak, Ma úš. 2024. “Podiel ženy na poľudš ení člo eka, alebo zopá poznámok k Pandó e.”
[The Pa Played by Woman in he Humanisa ion o he Man, o Some No es on Pando a].
Os ium 20, 4.
Rad o d, Neil. 2024. “Sex Dolls and Sex Robo s: Panacea o Pando a’s Box?” In Vic imisa ion
in he Digi al Age: An Online/O line Con inuum App oach, ed. by Tine Munk and Mo ag C.
Kennedy, 223–238. London and New Yo k: Rou ledge.
Sanio is, A hu , Kazhaleh Mohammadi, and F ancesco Ma ia Galassi. 2024. “Ancien G eeks
and Body/Cogni i e Enhancemen Technologies: An An h opological Pe spec i e.” An h opol-
ogie LXII, 1: 55–66.
Sca ne a, Pasquale. 2016. “The My h as a Tool o Human Beha io Se ing.” In e na ional
Jou nal o Social Science S udies 4, 7: 1–25. DOI:10.11114/ijsss. 4i7.1612.
Shapi o, H. Alan. 1994. My h in o A : Poe and Pain e in Classical G eece. London:
Rou ledge.
Snell, B uno. 1960. The Disco e y o he Mind: The G eek O igins o Eu opean Though . New
Yo k: Ha pe To chbooks.
Ve denius, Willem Jacob. 1985. A Commen a y on Hesiod Wo ks and Days, . 1–382. Leiden:
B ill.
Ve nan , Jean-Pie e. 2001. Vesm , boho é, lidé: Nejs a š řecké mý y. P ague and Li omyšl:
Paseka.
Ve nan , Jean-Pie e. 2006. My h and Though Among he G eeks. New Yo k: Zone Books.
Wes , Ma in Li ch ield (ed.). 1966. Hesiod: Theogony. Ox o d: Cla endon P ess.
138
challenges. Dys opian li e a u e hus p o ides no only a c i ical insigh in o cu -
en ends, bu also space o e lec ion on he di ec ion in which ci ilisa ion may
be heading.
Po en ial o Young Adul dys opias
The yea 2000 became he ocal poin o he eme gence o dys opian no els and
ilms aimed a young audiences, bu du ing his pe iod i was cus oma y o com-
bine he dys opian gen e wi h science ic ion (Campbell 2019, 8–10). YA dys o-
pias apidly gained ex ao dina y popula i y and a he same ime en iched he
educa ion sys em wi h new c ea i e oppo uni ies. In e ms o con en and in en-
ionali y, hey ha e he po en ial o con ibu e o he men al, e hical and aes he ic
educa ion o eade s and a e speci ically ailo ed o hem. Thei cha ac e is ic ea-
u es s imula e he de elopmen o cogni ion, c i ical hinking, social mo i a ion
and emo ional de elopmen . Especially o young eade s, eading ic ional s o-
ies is a aluable ool, p o iding space o explo ing and unde s anding mo al di-
lemmas, which is aluable o adolescen s as hey o m hei alues and a i udes
owa ds a ious aspec s o li e.
In his espec , adolescence is a pe iod o signi ican p og ess in lea ning,
adap a ion o social con ex s and cul u al in luences (C one and Dahl 2012, 638).
Cogni i e de elopmen can be signi ican ly in luenced by eading, which has a -
eaching posi i e e ec s on he de elopmen o a wide ange o cogni i e abili ies.
“You child en ead. F om hei eading hey ge knowledge hey would no ha e
i hey had no ead. I hey s udy, he imagina ion ca ches i e and in ensi ies in
he silence o hei ooms” (Rousseau 1979, 218). The consequences go beyond
hei p ima y ask (immedia ely unde s anding he meaning o a pa icula pas-
sage). Reading p omo es abs ac easoning, c ea i e hinking, memo y unc ions,
logic, concen a ion, pe cep ion, he abili y o ecognise cause and e ec , and ex-
pands ocabula y (Cunningham and S ano ich 1998, 140). The b ain becomes
mo e e icien a connec ing di e en pieces o in o ma ion and making as e de-
cisions. Adolescence can he e o e be desc ibed as a pe iod o signi ican neu o-
biological changes ha a ec he way young people p ocess in o ma ion and e-
spond o s imuli om hei en i onmen (Giedd 2008, 336–337). “These changes
and he eno mous plas ici y o he een b ain make adolescence a ime o g ea
isk and g ea oppo uni y” (Giedd 2008, 341).
The se ings and cha ac e s o YA ic ion in e ac wi h he biological and
psychological p ocesses and in ellec ual changes ha occu du ing adolescence.
Unexpec ed wis s and u ns and he as pace o ad en u ous plo s keep eade s

139
in cons an suspense, s imula ing he hype sensi i e dopamine gic sys em
(Vágne o á 2012, 372). I is a sa e space o explo ing emo ions wi hou adoles-
cen s ha ing o expe ience eal auma. They p o ide inspi ing cha ac e s, and
acco ding o esea ch by Jus in Scholes (2013, 14–18), a signi ican pa o he
success o you h li e a u e can be a ibu ed o he pe sonali ies o he main cha -
ac e s, wi h whom adolescen s can easily iden i y. The cen al p o agonis is a
cou ageous eenage who ebels agains an unjus sys em and igh s o social bal-
ance. They sol e p oblems in a way ha inspi es hope o a be e u u e in he
eade and a eeling ha mo ally co ec decisions can in luence he wo ld. A he
same ime, howe e , hey sha e he common p oblems o adolescen s, such as lo e
and iendship, which make i easie o young eade s o ela e o he ic ional
cha ac e and accep he a i udes and mo al s anda ds p esen ed as hei own. Ex-
amples include Bea ice “T is” P io om he Di e gen ilogy (Ro h 2011), Ka -
niss E e deen om The Hunge Games (Collins 2008) and Tally Youngblood
om he Uglies ilogy (Wes e eld 2005). T is igh s agains a cas e sys em ha
supp esses indi iduali y – and consciously e uses o choose only one o he i e
ac ions. Ka niss e eals he ue ace o poli ical p opaganda, h ough which he
eli es o he capi al opp ess he poo e pe iphe al a eas and c ea e social inequal-
i y. Tally ma u es om a gi l who igno es he poli ics o he own na ion in o a
conscious opponen o mains eam ideology ha celeb a es a supe icial ideal o
beau y. Dys opian no els o en ocus on he clash be ween pe sonal alues and a
ep essi e socie y and show how indi iduals can de end hei belie s e en a he
cos o pe sonal isk. When ic ional he oes ind hemsel es in dange , he limbic
sys em o adolescen s esponds wi h s ong empa hy, which s eng hens hei con-
nec ion o he s o y. A he same ime, eade s a e inspi ed o seek hei own mo al
bounda ies and unde s and he impo ance o alues in hei li es.
Cogni i e changes, especially he de elopmen o abs ac hinking and he
abili y o e lec on e hical dilemmas, enable adolescen s o hink mo e c i ically
abou mo al issues. Reaching adul hood is a ansi ion om nai e y o independ-
ence and esponsibili y. The abili y o unde s and complex concep s, me apho s
and mo al dilemmas inc eases, leading o g ea e in e es in philosophical ques-
ions, ideologies and poli ics. While child en end o accep he wo ld as i is, ad-
olescen s ask ques ions. “The de elopmen o hinking a his ime is cha ac e ised
by a g adual elease om dependence on conc e e eali y. (...) Reali y is only one
op ion among many o hem. Adolescen s a e able o hink hypo he ically, abou
a ious possibili ies, e en hose ha do no eally exis o a e e en unlikely”
(Vágne o á 2012, 379). The me amo phosis om he s ic ly black-and-whi e
140
iew o child en o he mo e ma u e p ism o adul s can, in he cou se o he p o-
cess, cause eelings o unce ain y abou subjec i e esponsibili y, u u e expec a-
ions and one’s own iden i y. As hey de elop, adolescen s a e be e able o un-
de s and abs ac concep s and consequences on a global scale, and hei b ains
a e mo e ecep i e o e hical issues. This leads o a deepe explo a ion o concep s
such as jus ice, eedom, o esponsibili y, which o en ake on pe sonal meaning
h ough expe ience and con on a ion wi h eal-li e p oblems. Dys opian s o ies
o en equi e eade s o conside he co ec ness o he cha ac e s’ decisions. In
his way, hey no only de elop hei hinking, bu also show an in e es in social
issues (S einbe g 2005, 11–19).
This s age o de elopmen is consis en wi h Kan ’s concep o mo al au-
onomy, acco ding o which uly e hical beha iou is based on an indi idual’s
abili y o ollow uni e sal p inciples a he han ex e nal au ho i ies (Kan 2012,
35–45; Wood 2008, 106–122). In p ac ice, his means ha indi iduals no only
ha e he igh bu also he du y o make decisions based on hei own eason and
conscience, e en i his con adic s cu en poli ical posi ions. Tha is why Kan ’s
e hics a e o en associa ed wi h he idea o indi idual esponsibili y and ci il dis-
obedience when he social o de con lic s wi h mo al p inciples (Wood 2008, 193–
205). Howe e , in he con ex o pos -mode n scep icism, he ques ion a ises as o
whe he hese uni e sal p inciples a e uly achie able o whe he mo ali y is a-
he a cons uc dependen on cul u al o o he con ex s.
Possibili ies and p e equisi es o mo ali y: Can mo ali y be
shaped by eading and educa ion?
The deba e abou whe he mo ali y is p ima ily inna e o acqui ed h ough lea n-
ing has accompanied philosophy since ancien imes and di ec ly in luences ou
unde s anding o an indi idual’s mo al de elopmen , as well as he ole ha ex-
e nal ac o s such as li e a u e can play. To wha ex en is human a ionali y de-
e mined by biological p ocesses, and wha ole does ee will play? Recognising
he dynamics o his dicho omy is impo an no only o psychology and neu o-
science, bu also o he analysis o social phenomena such as he o ma ion o
e hical alues in educa ion o he media ed in luence o he media on mo al deci-
sion-making. The di ec ion o esea ch in o he po en ial o dys opias he e o e
equi es us o de ine ou posi ion on his issue.
The philosophical discou se on he inna eness o mo ali y is based on e o-
lu iona y psychology and neu oscience, a guing ha basic mo al abili ies a e uni-
e sally biologically gi en o humans, independen o indi idual upb inging and
141
social en i onmen . P oponen s o mo ali y as an inna e phenomenon a gue ha
i is a na u al in ui ion esul ing om he e olu ion o he human species in he
con ex o na u al selec ion and he acili a ion o social cohesion (Haid and C aig
2004). Jona han Haid , in his heo y abou modal ounda ions (Mo al Founda ions
Theo y), a gues ha mo al hinking is based on e olu iona y p edisposi ions ha
a e modi ied by cul u al and indi idual expe iences. Mo ali y is no exclusi ely
he esul o a ional hinking, bu a he a se o in ui i e esponses ha a e e o-
lu iona ily oo ed (Haid and C aig 2004, 55–66). Haid d aws on empi ical s ud-
ies showing ha people a ound he wo ld sha e ce ain basic alues, such as jus-
ice, ca e o o he s, and espec o au ho i y. These alues also appea in e y
young child en (Hamlin, Wynn and Bloom 2007; Wa neken and Tomasello 2006),
which, acco ding o him, sugges s hei biological basis. Ma c Hause sha es a
simila iew wi h his mo al g amma hypo hesis, which is based on an analogy
wi h Chomsky’s heo y o linguis ic g amma . Hause a gues ha people ins inc-
i ely p ac ise mo al decisions wi hou being explici ly augh , simila o hei in-
na e abili y o acqui e language. The e a e uni e sal mo al in ui ions, such as dis-
app o al o ha ming o he s and a e sion o injus ice (Feh and Fischbache 2003,
785–791).
I we accep he iew ha mo ali y is exclusi ely inna e, hen i s o ma ion
h ough educa ion, li e a u e o o he cul u al s imuli would be limi ed, and mo al
de elopmen would be p ima ily biologically p ede e mined. F om his pe spec-
i e, dys opian li e a u e could a mos s imula e exis ing mechanisms, bu could
no undamen ally modi y hem. Howe e , he p e e ence o inna e mo ali y has
se e al ob ious weaknesses ha can be poin ed ou . Fi s o all, i o e looks he
dynamics o de elopmen and he in luence o he en i onmen in which an indi-
idual g ows up. I mo ali y we e uly an e olu iona y in ui ion inhe en in e e y
human being, we would no see cul u al di e ences in wha di e en socie ies
conside accep able o unaccep able. Fo example, issues such as he dea h pen-
al y, mino i y igh s, and gende equali y a e pe cei ed di e en ly, sugges ing ha
hese alues a e no uni e sal bu a e subjec o social o ma ion.
Con e sely, heo ies ha conside mo ali y o be acqui ed emphasise he
in luence o he social en i onmen , upb inging and cul u al ac o s on he o -
ma ion o alues. This app oach was ad oca ed, o example, by John S ua Mill,
who emphasised he in luence o upb inging and cul u e on he mo al o ma ion
o he indi idual. “The mo al eelings a e no inna e, bu acqui ed, hey a e no
o ha eason he less na u al. […] Like he o he acqui ed capaci ies abo e e-
e ed o, he mo al acul y, i no a pa o ou na u e, is a na u al ou g ow h om
142
i ; capable, like hem, in a ce ain small deg ee, o sp inging up spon aneously;
and suscep ible o being b ough by cul i a ion o a high deg ee o de elopmen ”
(Mill 2009, 55–56). A is o le, oo, in his Nicomachean E hics, a gued ha i ue
is no inna e bu acqui ed h ough epea ed p ac ice o good conduc : “None o
he mo al i ues a ises in us by na u e; o no hing ha exis s by na u e can o m
a habi con a y o i s na u e” (EN II. 1103a15–1103b25). Albe Bandu a, h ough
his social cogni i e heo y, showed ha mo al beha iou is he esul o obse a-
ional lea ning and imi a ion o models, wi h an emphasis on he in luence o am-
ily, pee s, media and cul u e (Bandu a 1977, 140–180; Janoušek 1992, 385–398).
Bandu a’s heo y assumes ha mo al beha iou can be augh , modelled and ein-
o ced h ough he en i onmen , upb inging and cul u al con ex . F om his pe -
spec i e, mo ali y no only e ol es bu is also suscep ible o in luence. Ne e he-
less, such an app oach would no be consis en , as i would igno e he neu obio-
logical sub ex and empi ical esea ch p o ing he exis ence o p edisposi ions,
which we will discuss in he ollowing pa ag aphs.
Goldbe g (2001, 140–142) poin s o co ela ing changes in pe sonali y and
mo al judgemen in case s udies o on al lobe damage, implying a signi ican
in luence o he biological s uc u e o he b ain on beha iou and mo ali y.
A mo al code can be hough o as he axonomy o sanc ioned ac ions and be-
ha iou s […] Could i hen be ha , by analogy, he p e on al co ex con ains he
axonomy o all he sanc ioned, mo al ac ions and beha iou s? And could i be
ha , jus as damage o malde elopmen o he pos e io associa ion co ex p o-
duces objec agnosia’s, so does damage o malde elopmen o he p e on al co -
ex p oduce, in some sense, mo al agnosia? (Goldbe g 2001, 142)
I he p ope unc ioning o he on al lobes is necessa y o adequa e mo al
judgemen and social beha iou , i can be in e ed ha he biological s uc u es o
he b ain p o ide he basis o mo al beha iou . Howe e , his is u he shaped
by expe ience and lea ning. This iew is consis en wi h he claim ha mo ali y is
he esul o he in e ac ion o inna e neu ological s uc u es and social in luences.
The e o e, we canno accep he hesis ha mo ali y is ei he solely inna e o solely
lea ned – i is biologically condi ioned, bu i s speci ic o m is demons ably
shaped by ex e nal in luences.
Empi ical suppo o his hypo hesis can be ound in s udies o mo al de-
cision-making in six- and en-mon h-old in an s, who show an abili y o judge
ai ness and un ai ness e en be o e hey unde go o mal socialisa ion. Ea ly de-
elopmen suppo s he iew ha social e alua ion is a biological adap a ion
143
(Hamlin, Wynn and Bloom 2007, 557–559). Howe e , i can be a gued ha he
esea ch only e i ies he exis ence o inna e in ui i e mechanisms, and hese
mani es a ions do no au oma ically con i m he exclusi e inna eness o mo ali y.
The esul is a he a syn hesis o inna e and acqui ed ac o s ha de e mines he
inal o m o hinking and beha iou . A s udy by Wa neken and Tomasello (2006,
1301–1303) also wo ks wi h simila conclusions, demons a ing ha child en ex-
hibi spon aneous al uis ic beha iou a a e y ea ly age ( hey in e ene spon a-
neously when hey see someone in need) wi hou being mo i a ed by ewa d, sug-
ges ing he exis ence o inna e mechanisms o p o-social beha iou and empa hy.
A i s glance, hese esul s again suppo he hypo hesis ha some o he oun-
da ions o mo al beha iou a e inna e. A he same ime, howe e , he s udies im-
plici ly con i m ha inna e p edisposi ions se e as a basic amewo k ha is u -
he de eloped and shaped h ough social in e ac ions and expe iences. Al hough
ea ly mani es a ions o al uism a e e iden , he speci ic o m, deg ee and ex en
o p o-social beha iou may a y depending on he con ex in which he child
g ows up. In his way, Wa neken and Tomasello’s s udies con ibu e o a model o
syn hesis o inna e and acqui ed ac o s, whe e e olu iona ily de e mined p edis-
posi ions in e ac wi h he en i onmen , in luencing he inal o m o mo al de-
elopmen .
The s udy by Feh and Fischbache (2003, 785–791) ocuses on he phe-
nomenon o al uis ic punishmen , i.e. he willingness o punish dishones beha -
iou e en wi hou di ec pe sonal bene i . The da a show ha his mechanism
unc ions as a ool o main aining coope a ion in g oups, as inapp op ia e beha -
iou by indi iduals ha h ea ens he s abili y o he collec i e is e ec i ely sup-
p essed. Mos cul u es show an a e sion o injus ice, bu he in luence o cul u e
is c ucial in de e mining he deg ee o his a e sion, wi h some socie ies being
mo e ole an o inequali y han o he s. On he one hand, hese esul s sugges ha
ce ain mo al in ui i e esponses (a e sion o injus ice) may be e olu iona ily de-
e mined. On he o he hand, howe e , hey show ha he deg ee and mani es a-
ion o al uis ic punishmen a ies ac oss cul u es, con i ming he impo ance o
socialisa ion and cul u al ac o s in shaping hese mo al esponses. “As al eady
men ioned, people a e nei he d i en exclusi ely by in e nal o ces no au oma i-
cally shaped exclusi ely by he ex e nal en i onmen , bu con ibu e o hei own
mo i a ion, beha iou and de elopmen h ough ecip ocal in luences. Basic hu-
man abili ies con ibu e o his. These abili ies a e ei he cul i a ed o emain un-
de eloped in indi idual de elopmen , and people di e in hei speci ic o m”
(Janoušek 1992, 387). The s udies men ioned abo e show ha mo al p e-

144
disposi ions a e inex icably linked o an indi idual’s neu obiological de elop-
men , bu hei speci ic mani es a ions a e shaped by upb inging, educa ion and
cul u e.
F om a pe spec i e ha conside s mo ali y o be a syn hesis o he in e ac-
ion o inna e p edisposi ions and social lea ning, i is necessa y o emphasise he
impo ance o he cul u al en i onmen o he o ma ion o mo al easoning. De-
cision-making in ol es bo h inna e emo ions and he cogni i e p ocessing o
complex e hical dilemmas ha we lea n o esol e h oughou ou li es. E olu-
iona y ac o s a e necessa y p e equisi es o mo al in ui ion, bu en i onmen al
in luences shape he indi idual o m o mo ali y. F ans de Waal (2006, 160–175)
p oposes a concep o h ee s ages ha illus a e he e olu iona y con inui y be-
ween animal and human beha iou . P ima y ins inc i e esponses include empa-
hy, compassion, al uism, ca ing beha iou , esou ce sha ing and mu ual suppo ,
and hese biological ounda ions o mo ali y can be obse ed no only in mammals
bu also in bi ds, o example. In in elligen species (p ima es), we obse e deepe
ecip oci y, a sense o jus ice, punishmen o chea e s, s a egic us -building, and
awa eness o epu a ion. This s age e lec s jus ice as a unc ion o social cohe-
sion. The highes le el is pu ely human no ma i e mo ali y, which equi es he
abili y o hink abs ac ly and includes language as a ool o sha ing, he o mu-
la ion o gene al no ms, sophis ica ed mo al easoning, and esponsibili y wi hou
he need o di ec social p essu e. We he e o e also obse e p edisposi ions in
animals, bu acco ding o de Waal, he human species is capable o cul i a ing
hem; o he wise, hey would emain a hei basic le el as a biological adap a ion
mechanism.
Al hough he ques ion o whe he mo ali y is inna e o acqui ed emains
open, cu en philosophical esea ch, e olu iona y biology expe imen s, and ind-
ings in psychology and neu oscience end o suppo a syn he ic app oach. F om
his pe spec i e, mo al compe ence is unde s ood as he esul o in e ac ion be-
ween biological p edisposi ions and social lea ning. People en e he wo ld wi h
a ce ain po en ial ( he capaci y o empa hy and ecip oci y), bu he ull de el-
opmen o hese a ibu es depends on he ex e nal s imuli o which hey a e ex-
posed. This opens up space o he p ac ical applica ion o li e a u e. I we accep
ha mo ali y is nei he ully inna e no pu ely lea ned, hen dys opian ic ion can
play a signi ican ole no only as a passi e mi o o socie y, bu also as an ac i e
ool o mo al o ma ion.
145
Sugges ions o wo king wi h young eade s
The complex na u e o mo al de elopmen as a p ocess shaped by bo h biological
p edisposi ions and socio-cul u al in luences opens up space o a philosophically,
psychologically and pedagogically usable amewo k in which li e a u e ceases o
be me ely an aes he ic objec and becomes a powe ul ool o educa ion. Dys o-
pias a e a p omising educa ional ool i hey a e app op ia ely in eg a ed in o he
educa ional p ocess and used o de elop mo al au onomy, empa hy and c i ical
hinking. We now u n o he ques ion o he p ac ical use o li e a y means in he
p ocess o mo al ma u a ion o young people.
The desi ed s a e is o inco po a e examples om dys opian wo ks in o les-
sons. Un o una ely, in he domes ic educa ion sys em (Czech Republic, Slo-
akia), dys opias do no appea e y o en on he lis s o compulso y o ecom-
mended eading. In a su ey o lib a ians, in which 142 esponden s om he
Czech Republic pa icipa ed (Lišo ská 2022), he ecommended i les o second-
a y schools included The Gi e by Lois Low y (8), The Hunge Games by Su-
zanne Collins (1), Scy he by Neal Shus e man (3), Unwind by Neal Shus e man
(2) and he Di e gen ilogy by Ve onica Ro h (1). Conside ing he impo ance
o analysing dys opian wo ks in he p esence o an adul , hese numbe s a e in-
su icien . They poin o he ac ha dys opias a e only minimally ep esen ed in
educa ional p ac ice and hei in e p e a ion is hus le o he eade s hemsel es
wi hou pedagogical men o ing. Ou goal should he e o e be o in eg a e dys o-
pian ic ion in o gene al awa eness and o wo k wi h young eade s in an app o-
p ia e manne .
A sui able me hod ha can be applied is he Kons anz Me hod o Dilemma
Discussion (KMDD). I is a p ac ical and easy- o-use ool o de eloping mo al
compe ence in child en, adolescen s and adul s. I was de eloped by Geo g Lind
based on Law ence Kohlbe g’s cogni i e-de elopmen al heo y, which unde -
s ands mo al de elopmen as he g adual acquisi ion o inc easingly complex
o ms o mo al easoning (Lind 2006, 190; Lind 2019, 97–98). Howe e , Lind
en iched he heo y wi h a didac ic dimension, making he me hod ideal o use in
educa ional o counselling se ings. In he con ex o wo king wi h li e a u e, i
ep esen s a me hodological b idge be ween li e a y analysis and e hical educa-
ion, as dys opian ic ion is o en based on mo al con lic s and ex eme si ua ions
ha can be easily ansla ed in o dilemmas sui able o guided discussion. KMDD
has nine speci ic phases di ided in o an in oduc o y, discussion and concluding
pa (Lind 2019, 161–163).
146
In he in oduc ion, pa icipan s a e in oduced o he chosen dilemma,
guided o unde s and he con ex , and encou aged o hink c i ically abou he con-
sequences. An essen ial ac o when wo king wi h ic ional exce p s is o a oid
me ely eading he ex mechanically, which could esul in he subconscious ac-
cep ance o heses ha a e no ully unde s ood, hus was ing he oppo uni y o
build posi i e alues. A he same ime, he chosen example should be nei he oo
easy no oo di icul , o he wise s uden s may dis ance hemsel es om pa ici-
pa ing in he discussion (Lind 2019, 99). Fo seconda y school pupils (adoles-
cen s), unde s anding dys opian na a i es (e.g. human igh s) can be p oblema ic
wi hou expe men o ing, as hey may no ye ha e su icien expe ience wi h
simila opics. The e o e, eaching should include in o ma ion ha helps s uden s
unde s and he issues add essed in he wo k so ha hey a e able o comp ehend
he con en and a gue in a ou o hei posi ion. Fo example, acco ding o Ambe
M. Simmons (2012, 22–34), Suzanne Collins’
40
The Hunge Games is an ideal
ool o s imula ing li e acy and social engagemen among young people, p o ided
ha he eading is supplemen ed wi h lec u e ma e ials ocusing on global issues
( amine, o ced labou , mode n sla e y, child igh ing, iolence agains child en,
e c.). In his way, s uden s can ecognise he pa allels be ween he ic ional wo ld
and eali y, lea n abou eal o ganisa ions igh ing o jus ice, and possibly ge
in ol ed in socially bene icial ac i i ies hemsel es.
The cen al phase is discussion. The dilemma is clea ly p esen ed and pa -
icipan s a e in i ed o sha e hei ini ial hough s. Each pa icipan decides inde-
penden ly how hey would ac in he gi en si ua ion and a gues in a ou o hei
posi ion, while e lec ing on hei own mo al easoning and ha o o he s. Possible
solu ions a e discussed in g oups, aking in o accoun di e en pe spec i es,
which p omo es he de elopmen o empa hy, he abili y o unde s and opposing
iews and o e-e alua e one’s own posi ion. An essen ial aspec is he e o no
o s op a a basic unde s anding o he main idea o he ex , bu o encou age
eade s o o m well- easoned opinions. They mus ha e he oppo uni y o dis-
cuss and compa e hei posi ions wi h hei classma es, wi h he eache ac ing as
a media o o guide he discussion and p o ide addi ional in o ma ion ela ed o
he opic. The eache ’s ask is no o p o ide he co ec solu ion, bu o de elop
he pa icipan s’ abili y o a gue, encou age equal pa icipa ion, ensu e a sa e
40
Since i s publica ion, The Hunge Games has ea ned a place as a seminal wo k o mode n ic ion, and
hanks o i s imelessness, i is o en inco po a ed in o school cu icula in he Uni ed S a es (Ames 2013,
10).
147
en i onmen o exp ession, and keep he discussion wi hin he bounda ies o he
chosen opic (Lind 2019, 102).
The key a gumen s and ou comes o he discussion a e summa ised a he
end. Pa icipan s in eg a e hei newly acqui ed knowledge in o hei unde s and-
ing o mo al dilemmas. A e he discussion, each indi idual has he oppo uni y
o change hei decision, his ime aking in o accoun he a gumen s hey ha e
hea d. Changing one’s decision is no he p ima y goal, bu a aluable indica o
o he de elopmen o hinking. The session concludes wi h a inal e lec ion in
which he g oup sha es which momen s o he discussion appealed o hem he
mos and which a gumen s su p ised hem. The ecommended leng h o a single
session is 80–90 minu es o gi e s uden s enough ime o ully unde s and he co e
o he dilemma and hink h ough hei a gumen s. The mos e ec i e way o
s uc u e he cu iculum is o include a smalle numbe o lessons o e a longe
pe iod o ime, wi h one lesson e e y wo o h ee weeks being a sui able in e al
(Lind 2006, 192; Lind 2019, 104).
Ano he possible example om pedagogical p ac ice was p esen ed by
Vácho á (2023), who de eloped a six-hou eaching amewo k using dys opian
li e a u e, pa o which was implemen ed in a Yea 9 p ima y school class ( he
a ge g oup was 15 pupils o mixed gende ). Using selec ed exce p s om he YA
dys opias The Gi e [1993] by Lois Low y and The G ace Yea [2019] by Kim
Ligge , she p esen ed he impo ance o human igh s, which p o ed o be qui e
challenging o his age g oup. In he subsequen e lec ion on he own case s udy,
Vácho á ecommends no choosing he opic o human igh s on an ad hoc basis,
bu using i as an in oduc ion o a deepe explo a ion o he issue. The lesson also
e ealed a nega i e ea u e ha we had expec ed, namely a s ong social impac
and he adap a ion o opinions o he g oup. “The boys suppo ed each o he in he
iew ha equali y (be ween men and women) is no impo an , which is why he
boys’ g oups anked his igh las , while he gi ls’ g oups anked i e y high.
This was appa en ly encou aged by mu ual p o oca ion, wi h he boys delibe -
a ely p o oking he gi ls by saying ha women belong in he ki chen” (Vácho á
2023, 75). The esul s o his esea ch con i m he ini ial hypo hesis ha adoles-
cen s a e highly malleable and ha hei alue and cogni i e s uc u es a e shaped
by ex e nal s imuli. I appea s ha wi hou adequa e men o ing, adolescen s may
in e p e he ex supe icially o dis o edly, while he p esence o an adul mod-
e a es hei pe cep ion and p o ides con ex , which can help o o m a balanced
wo ld- iew. Vácho á’s me hod akes a di e en app oach in his espec , as i p i-
o i ises he educa ional dimension aimed a he gene al enligh enmen o young