A study and analysis of the moral and ethical perception of cybernetic humans

As technology advances, we are faced with new ethical and moral dilemmas, such as whether cyborgs should count as human beings.Literature generally finds that cybernetic technology is viewed as acceptable when restoring lost functions but not when it provides abilities past human capability.Previous research has not investigated public attitude towards perception of the cyborg's overall value of life.In our research and experiment, we are using surveys of students and faculty, most of whom are from Carson-Newman University in Tennessee, to measure how people view the value of a cyborg's life.We used a series of twelve questions where participants must choose whether a car should hit Pedestrian A or Pedestrian B with both hypothetical characters having varying amounts of external cybernetic enhancements.Respondents are provided with information on the purpose, extent, and invasiveness of each pedestrian's cybernetics.Pedestrians who enhanced their capabilities were more likely to be hit than those who used cybernetics for replacement of lost functions.Respondents also viewed cyborgs as more durable and more likely to survive collisions than fully human pedestrians.The findings of this research suggest that while cybernetic technology may restore or enhance abilities, public perception treats cyborgs as fundamentally different from natural humans, especially when visible enhancements are present.