ABSTRACT
In his book The future of human nature, Jürgen Habermas argues against a scenario of liberal eugenics, in which parents are free to prenatally manipulate their children's genetic constitution via germline interventions. In this paper, I draw attention to the fact that his species-ethical line of argument is pervaded by a substantial ambiguity between an argument from actual intervention (AAI) and an argument from mere controllability (AMC). Whereas the first argument focuses on threats for the autonomy and equality of prenatally modified persons, the second argument takes all human beings, whether they have been modified or not, into account. Hence, when invoking Habermas in these debates, bioethicists need to consider carefully which argument they are referring to.
Subject(s)
Eugenics , Genetic Engineering/ethics , Genetic Engineering/standards , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/standards , Dissent and Disputes , Humans , Personal AutonomyABSTRACT
El Transhumanismo se refiere a una nebulosa de ideas cuyos argumentos parecen cercanos a la fantasía. No es difícil seleccionar textos y declaraciones que lo desacrediten. El enfoque del autor es constructivo, porque considera que el transhumanismo es digno de atención. Se ofrece la posibilidad de articular de manera coherente una amplia gama de ideas y cuestiones: desde un punto de vista antropológico, epistemológico, ético, político e incluso ontológico en los debates bioéticos. Esto ya se llevó a cabo a finales de 1990 con la creación de La Asociación Transhumanista Mundial (WTA) (AU)
Tranhumanisn refers to a nebula ideas where seious arguments are neigbouring with fantasy. It is not difficult to select text and statements to discredit it. The author´s approach is constructive, for the thinks transhumanism is worth attention. It provides the possibility to articulate in coherent way a wide range of ideas and issues: anthropological, epistemological, ethical, political and even ontological scattered over bioethical debates. This was already undertaken in the late 1990s, with the creation of The World Transhumanist Association (WTA) (AU)
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Humanism , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/methods , Genetic Enhancement/standards , Genetic Engineering/methods , Nanotechnology/methods , Biotechnology/methods , Postmodernism , Genetic Engineering/ethics , Genetic Engineering/standards , Biotechnology/standards , Biotechnology/trendsABSTRACT
John Harris and Julian Savulescu, leading figures in the "new' eugenics, argue that parents are morally obligated to use genetic and other technologies to enhance their children. But the argument they give leads to conclusions even more radical than they acknowledge. Ultimately, the world it would lead to is not all that different from that championed by eugenicists one hundred years ago.
Subject(s)
Bioethical Issues , Eugenics/trends , Fertilization in Vitro/ethics , Genetic Enhancement/ethics , Moral Obligations , Eugenics/methods , Fertilization in Vitro/trends , Forecasting , Genetic Enhancement/standards , Humans , Nuclear Transfer Techniques/ethics , Nuclear Transfer Techniques/standards , Preimplantation Diagnosis/ethics , Preimplantation Diagnosis/methodsABSTRACT
A common argument in favor of using reprogenetic technologies to enhance children goes like this: parents have always aimed at enhancing their children through upbringing and education, so why not use new tools to accomplish the same goal? But reprogenetics differs significantly from good childrearing and education, in its means, if not its ends.
