Text 1: Bioethicist Dr. Lisa Wells defends human enhancement. "If we accept treating disease, why not improving beyond normal function?" Wells argues. "The line between treatment and enhancement is arbitrary. Both aim at better lives."
Text 2: Philosopher Dr. Robert Chen questions the equivalence. "Treatment restores normal function; enhancement reconfigures it," Chen contends. "Treating diabetes and adding photographic memory differ categorically. The treatment-enhancement distinction tracks something morally significant."
What does Chen suggest Wells overlooks in collapsing treatment and enhancement?
That disease doesn't exist
That a morally significant difference exists between restoration and augmentation
That better lives have no value
That normal function cannot be defined
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Wells finds the line "arbitrary." Chen argues the distinction "tracks something morally significant"—restoration vs. augmentation differ categorically, not just in degree.
- Evidence: Chen: treatment and enhancement "differ categorically."
- Reasoning: Wells's collapse ignores a genuine moral boundary.
- Conclusion: Chen defends the distinction Wells dismisses.
Choice A is incorrect because Chen accepts treatment exists. Choice C is incorrect because Chen doesn't reject the goal. Choice D is incorrect because Chen invokes normal function.