- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
The Inevitability of Genetic Enhancement Technologies
Bioethics 18 (1):1-26 (2004)
Abstract
ABSTRACT We outline a number of ethical objections to genetic technologies aimed at enhancing human capacities and traits. We then argue that, despite the persuasiveness of some of these objections, they are insufficient to stop the development and use of genetic enhancement technologies. We contend that the inevitability of the technologies results from a particular guiding worldview of humans as masters of the human evolutionary future, and conclude that recognising this worldview points to new directions for ethical thinking about genetic enhancement technologies.Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
The inevitability of genetic enhancement technologies.Francoise Baylis & Jason Scott Robert - 2004 - Bioethics 18 (1):1–26.
The global governance of genetic enhancement technologies: Justification, proposals, and challenges.Jon Rueda - 2024 - Enrahonar: Quaderns de Filosofía 72:55-71.
Neoliberalising Bioethics: Bias, Enhancement and Economistic Ethics.Kean Birch - 2008 - Genomics, Society and Policy 4 (2):1-10.
The morally disruptive future of reprogenetic enhancement technologies.Jon Rueda, Jonathan Pugh & Julian Savulescu - 2022 - Trends in Biotechnology.
The Biopolitics of Human Enhancement.Steven Umbrello, Cristiano Calì & James J. Hughes (eds.) - 2024 - Berlin: De Gruyter.
From genome editing to human genetic enhancement: a new time for discussing eugenics?Mauro Mandrioli - 2022 - Scienza E Filosofia 27:237-250.
From Self‐Determination to Offspring‐Determination? Reproductive Autonomy, Procrustean Parenting, and Genetic Enhancement.Jon Rueda - 2021 - Theoria 88 (6):1086-1110.
A Pragmatic Optimism About Enhancement Technologies.Nicholas Agar - 2004 - In Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 20–38.
Genetic immunization: enhancement or public health measure? (2nd edition).Tess Johnson - 2018 - In Sorin Hostiuc (ed.), Clinical Ethics at the Crossroads of Genetic and Reproductive Technologies. Academic Press. pp. Chapter 21.
Enhanced Humans When?Nicholas Agar - 2004 - In Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 158–175.
Analytics
Added to PP
2017-02-17
Downloads
20 (#181,865)
6 months
11 (#1,140,922)
2017-02-17
Downloads
20 (#181,865)
6 months
11 (#1,140,922)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Public Opinion on Cognitive Enhancement Varies across Different Situations.Claire T. Dinh, Stacey Humphries & Anjan Chatterjee - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 11 (4):224-237.
Epigenetics in the Neoliberal “Regime of Truth”.Charles Dupras & Vardit Ravitsky - 2015 - Hastings Center Report 46 (1):26-35.
Ethical considerations in the framing of the cognitive enhancement debate.Simon M. Outram - 2011 - Neuroethics 5 (2):173-184.
The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering.R. Powell - 2012 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (3):204-225.
Lost in translation: Religious arguments made secular.Carson Strong - 2005 - American Journal of Bioethics 5 (3):29 – 31.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6686886f5-ktvwr uwo