Ageing and death are problems, not conditions.
The moral move is small and total: reclassify what everyone has always treated as the frame of life as a defect inside it, and the obligation to fix it follows from ordinary medical ethics.
The central transhumanist move is a reclassification rather than a discovery: ageing is redescribed as a disease process, cognitive limits as correctable deficits, and death as the failure mode of a repairable system. Once the redescription is accepted, no new ethics is needed — the ordinary obligation to treat disease does the rest of the work, which is why transhumanists so often frame the argument as continuous with medicine rather than as a break from it. Opponents, notably Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama, argue that finitude is constitutive of the goods it supposedly limits, and that a life without an ending is not a longer version of this one. The dispute is not empirical and neither side expects to resolve it.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.