Abstract

In the current bioethical debates on authenticity and enhancement, the discourse is dominated by a binary distinction between self-discovery and self-constitution. The self-discovery model views authenticity as staying true to a preexisting, intrinsic nature, while self-constitution frames it as being faithful to self-imposed goals and freely chosen aspirations. However, I argue that a threefold distinction could enrich this debate and offer more nuanced perspectives on authenticity. I propose a new taxonomy consisting of three models. First, the expressivist model, aligned with self-discovery, sees authenticity as expressing a natural, inner self. Second, the decisional model focuses on existential commitment, where authenticity arises from firm life choices and perseverance in the face of challenges. Lastly, the experimentalist model, inspired by Nietzsche, views life as a continuous process of self-reinvention, where authenticity is achieved through experimentation and embracing change. In the final section, I examine both sides of the enhancement debate. Supporters, using the experimentalist model, can argue that enhancement technologies allow for personal growth and creative self-exploration. However, critics, drawing on Nietzschean insights, warn that these technologies might provide superficial shortcuts, bypassing the deep struggles essential for authentic self-transformation. Moreover, they could lead to conformity, limiting individual uniqueness. My tripartite model offers a pluralistic view, suggesting that while enhancement can be ethically valuable, it also requires caution to avoid undermining the very process of self-overcoming that defines true authenticity.