The gene-editing of super-ego

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (3):295-302 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX


New emerging biotechnologies, such as gene editing, vastly extend our ability to alter the human being. This comes together with strong aspirations to improve humans not only physically, but also mentally, morally, and socially. These conjoined ambitions aggregate to what can be labelled “the gene editing of super-ego.” This article investigates a general way used to argue for new biotechnologies, such as gene-editing: if it is safe and efficacious to implement technology X for the purpose of a common good Y, why should we not do so? This is a rhetorical question with a conditional, and may be dismissed as such. Moreover, investigating the question transformed into a formal argument reveals that the argument does not hold either. Nonetheless, the compelling force of the question calls for closer scrutiny, revealing that this way of arguing for biotechnology is based on five assumptions. Analysis of these assumptions shows their significant axiological, empirical, and philosophical challenges. This makes it reasonable to claim that these kinds of question based promotions of specific biotechnologies fail. Hence, the aspirations to make a super-man with a super-ego appear fundamentally flawed. As these types of moral bioenhancement arguments become more prevalent, a revealing hype test is suggested: What is special with this technology, compared to existing methods, that makes it successful in improving human social characteristics in order to make the world a better place for all? Valid answers to this question will provide good reasons to pursue such technologies. Hence, the aim is not to bar the development of modern biotechnology, but rather to ensure good developments and applications of highly potent technologies. So far, we still have a long way to go to make persons with goodness gene.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 84,152

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Crowdsourcing the Moral Limits of Human Gene Editing?Eric T. Juengst - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (3):15-23.
Gene Editing and Journal Editing.Trevor Stammers - 2018 - The New Bioethics 24 (1):1-1.
Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations.Kewal Krishan, Tanuj Kanchan & Bahadur Singh - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):597-599.
The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing.Gyngell Christopher, Douglas Thomas & Savulescu Julian - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (4):498-513.
CRISPR Becomes Clearer.Andrew W. Torrance - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (5):5-6.
Global bioethics.Carolyn P. Neuhaus - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (6):inside front cover-inside front.
“Editing”: A Productive Metaphor for Regulating CRISPR.Ben Merriman - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):62-64.
Petronius 35.4.Ramon Baltar Veloso - 1976 - Classical Quarterly 26 (2):319-319.
Petronius 35.4.Ramon Baltar Veloso - 1976 - Classical Quarterly 26 (02):319-.
Trimalchio's Zodiac Dish.K. F. C. Rose† & J. P. Sullivan - 1968 - Classical Quarterly 18 (1):180-184.
Parenting in the Age of Preimplantation Gene Editing.Sigal Klipstein - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (s3):S28-S33.


Added to PP

22 (#553,043)

6 months
3 (#248,711)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Human Enhancement: Enhancing Health or Harnessing Happiness?Bjørn Hofmann - 2019 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 16 (1):87-98.
Science fiction and bioethics.Bert Gordijn & Henk ten Have - 2018 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (3):277-278.

Add more citations