Genetic enhancement, social justice, and welfare-oriented patterns of distribution

Bioethics 26 (6):296-304 (2012)

Edwin Etieyibo
University of the Witwatersrand
The debate over the host of moral issues that genetic enhancement technology (GET) raises has been significant. One argument that has been advanced to impugn its moral legitimacy is the ‘unfair advantage argument’ (UAA), which states: allowing access to GET to be determined by socio-economic status would lead to unjust outcomes, namely, create a genetic caste system, and with it the exacerbation and perpetuation of existing socio-economic inequalities. Fritz Allhoff has recently objected to the argument, the kernel of which is that it conflates the use of the technology with its distribution. GET, he argues, would generate unjust outcomes only if it is distributed according to principles of an unjust pattern of distribution; for if we can determine what constitutes a ‘just’ distributive scheme, then the technology can be allocated according to the principles of that scheme. In this paper I argue the following cluster of related claims: (1) both UAA and Allhoff's proposed distributive schemes ignore the importance of non-genetic factors in the development of an individual's characteristics and capacities; (2) if we accept the view that it is good to prevent unjust outcomes that arise because some have exclusive access to GET, then we have to accept wide-ranging distributive schemes; (3) by tracking genetic and non-genetic factors wide-ranging schemes do violate in some sense the widely shared value of neutrality in liberal democracies
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01872.x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 39,692
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Luck, Genes, and Equality.Dov Fox - 2007 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35 (4):712-726.
Genetic Enhancement: Plan Now to Act Later.Maxwell J. Mehlman - 2005 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (1):77-82.
Debunking the Slippery Slope Argument Against Human Germ-Line Gene Therapy.David Resnik - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (1):23-40.
Germ-Line Genetic Enhancement and Rawlsian Primary Goods.Fritz Allhoff - 2005 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (1):39-56.
The Wisdom of Caution: Genetic Enhancement and Future Children.Jason Borenstein - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):517-530.
Can Human Genetic Enhancement Be Prohibited?William Gardner - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):65-84.
The Genetic Difference Principle.Colin Farrelly - 2004 - American Journal of Bioethics 4 (2):21 – 28.
Genetic Justice Must Track Genetic Complexity.Colin Farrelly - 2008 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17 (1):45-53.
The Ethics of Genetic Screening in the Workplace.Joseph Kupfer - 1993 - Business Ethics Quarterly 3 (1):17-25.
Genetic Enhancement and Moral Attitudes Toward the Given.Terrance Mcconnell - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):369-380.


Added to PP index

Total views
39 ( #192,778 of 2,328,113 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #278,029 of 2,328,113 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature