David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Philosophy Today 22:153-167 (2006)
The present essay tries to address certain questions arising from the conjunction of biological and political issues by entering into the debate surrounding what Nicolas Agar has called “liberal eugenics.”1 The advocates of liberal eugenics argue for the moral validity of both ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ eugenics: genetic interventions which target the prevention of diseases are ‘negative’ while ‘positive’ interventions ‘enhance’ the hereditary capacities of future persons. But is there a necessary contradiction, or at least pronounced tension, between the liberal eugenicist’s emphasis on parental choice in the realm of genetic decision-makingand liberal principles, such as pluralism and autonomy? If so, why? In this paper, I examine Agar’s defense of liberal eugenics. I then discuss the criticisms raised by Jurgen Habermas in “The Debate on the Ethical Self-Understanding of the Species,” concluding that it is necessary to pursue a cautious strategy in the utilization of genetic technologies
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Wade Roberts (2007). Autonomy, Pluralism, and the Future of the Species: Agar and Habermas on Liberal Eugenics. Philosophical Explorations 22:153-167.
Robert Sparrow (2011). Liberalism and Eugenics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):499 - 517.
George Crowder (2007). Two Concepts of Liberal Pluralism. Political Theory 35 (2):121 - 146.
Bernard G. Prusak (2005). Rethinking "Liberal Eugenics": Reflections and Questions on Habermas on Bioethics. Hastings Center Report 35 (6):31-42.
Donovan Miyasaki (2014). Nietzsche's Naturalist Morality of Breeding: A Critique of Eugenics as Taming. In Vanessa Lemm (ed.), Nietzsche and the Becoming of Life. Fordham University Press 194-213.
John Gray (1998). Where Pluralists and Liberals Part Company. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 6 (1):17 – 36.
Floris Tomasini (2007). Imagining Human Enhancement: Whose Future, Which Rationality? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (6):497-507.
Marc Ereshefsky (1992). Eliminative Pluralism. Philosophy of Science 59 (4):671-690.
Ingo Brigandt (2003). Species Pluralism Does Not Imply Species Eliminativism. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1305–1316.
Jyotsna Agnihotri Gupta (2007). Private and Public Eugenics: Genetic Testing and Screening in India. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 4 (3):217-228.
Neil Burtonwood (2000). Must Liberal Support for Separate Schools Be Subject to a Condition of Individual Autonomy? British Journal of Educational Studies 48 (3):269-284.
Craig L. Carr (2010). Liberalism and Pluralism: The Politics of E Pluribus Unum. Palgrave Macmillan.
Marc Ereshefsky (1998). Species Pluralism and Anti-Realism. Philosophy of Science 65 (1):103-120.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads14 ( #263,068 of 1,911,306 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,064 of 1,911,306 )
How can I increase my downloads?