Defeaters to best interests reasoning in genetic enhancement

Philosophical Studies 174 (11):2845-2869 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Pre-natal genetic enhancement affords us unprecedented capacity to shape our skills, talents, appearance and perhaps subsequently the quality of our lives in terms of overall happiness, success and wellbeing. Despite its powerful appeal, some have raised important and equally persuasive concerns against genetic enhancement. Sandel has argued that compassion and humility, themselves grounded in the unpredictability of talents and skills, would be lost. Habermas has argued that genetically altered individuals will see their lives as dictated by their parents’ design and therefore will not acquire an appropriate self-understanding. How should we view enhancement efforts in light of these concerns? I propose that we begin by adopting a defeasibility stance. That is, I ask whether our belief that genetic enhancements serve in the best interests of the child is reason to genetically enhance, underscoring a sort of epistemic vulnerability. I utilize the epistemological notions of defeasible reasons, undercutting and overriding defeaters in order to better understand and systematically evaluate the force of such concerns. I argue that close examination of both objections using this framework shows that we have reason to enhance, a reason that is defeasible but as yet, undefeated.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,509

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

Egalitarianism and Responsibility in the Genetic Future.Linda Barclay - 2009 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (2):119-134.
Genetic Enhancement and Moral Attitudes Toward the Given.Terrance Mcconnell - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):369-380.
Can Human Genetic Enhancement Be Prohibited?William Gardner - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):65-84.
Genetic Enhancement: Plan Now to Act Later.Maxwell J. Mehlman - 2005 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (1):77-82.
The Silencing of Kierkegaard in Habermas' Critique of Genetic Enhancement.Karin Christiansen - 2009 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12 (2):147-156.
The Wisdom of Caution: Genetic Enhancement and Future Children.Jason Borenstein - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):517-530.
Enhancement and Equality.Greg Bognar - 2012 - Ethical Perspectives 19 (1):11-32.
Genetic Enhancement and Parental Obligation.Larry A. Herzberg - 2007 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (2):98-111.
Should We Enhance Animals?S. Chan - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (11):678-683.
Human Enhancement and Sexual Dimorphism.Rob Sparrow - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (9):464-475.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-11-08

Downloads
27 (#427,989)

6 months
1 (#417,896)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sruthi Rothenfluch
University of Portland