Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (3):295-302 (2018)
AbstractNew emerging biotechnologies, such as gene editing, vastly extend our ability to alter the human being. This comes together with strong aspirations to improve humans not only physically, but also mentally, morally, and socially. These conjoined ambitions aggregate to what can be labelled “the gene editing of super-ego.” This article investigates a general way used to argue for new biotechnologies, such as gene-editing: if it is safe and efficacious to implement technology X for the purpose of a common good Y, why should we not do so? This is a rhetorical question with a conditional, and may be dismissed as such. Moreover, investigating the question transformed into a formal argument reveals that the argument does not hold either. Nonetheless, the compelling force of the question calls for closer scrutiny, revealing that this way of arguing for biotechnology is based on five assumptions. Analysis of these assumptions shows their significant axiological, empirical, and philosophical challenges. This makes it reasonable to claim that these kinds of question based promotions of specific biotechnologies fail. Hence, the aspirations to make a super-man with a super-ego appear fundamentally flawed. As these types of moral bioenhancement arguments become more prevalent, a revealing hype test is suggested: What is special with this technology, compared to existing methods, that makes it successful in improving human social characteristics in order to make the world a better place for all? Valid answers to this question will provide good reasons to pursue such technologies. Hence, the aim is not to bar the development of modern biotechnology, but rather to ensure good developments and applications of highly potent technologies. So far, we still have a long way to go to make persons with goodness gene.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement.Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu - 2012 - Oxford University Press UK.
The Perils of Cognitive Enhancement and the Urgent Imperative to Enhance the Moral Character of Humanity.Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3):162-177.
Getting Moral Enhancement Right: The Desirability of Moral Bioenhancement.Ingmar Persson & Julian Savulescu - 2013 - Bioethics 27 (3):124-131.
Better Living Through Chemistry? A Reply to Savulescu and Persson on ‘Moral Enhancement’.Robert Sparrow - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (1):23-32.
Similar books and articles
Gene Editing: A View Through the Prism of Inherited Metabolic Disorders.James Davison - 2018 - The New Bioethics 24 (1):2-8.
Crowdsourcing the Moral Limits of Human Gene Editing?Eric T. Juengst - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (3):15-23.
Human Genome Editing and Ethical Considerations.Kewal Krishan, Tanuj Kanchan & Bahadur Singh - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2):597-599.
The Ethics of Germline Gene Editing.Gyngell Christopher, Douglas Thomas & Savulescu Julian - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (4):498-513.
The Moral Imperative to Continue Gene Editing Research on Human Embryos.Julian Savulescu, Jonathan Pugh, Thomas Douglas & Chris Gyngell - 2015 - Protein Cell 6 (7):476–479.
“Editing”: A Productive Metaphor for Regulating CRISPR.Ben Merriman - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (12):62-64.
When MicroRNAs Meet RNA Editing in Cancer: A Nucleotide Change Can Make a Difference.Yumeng Wang & Han Liang - 2018 - Bioessays 40 (2):1700188.
Trimalchio's Zodiac Dish.K. F. C. Rose† & J. P. Sullivan - 1968 - Classical Quarterly 18 (1):180-184.
Trimalchio's Zodiac Dish (Petronius, SAT. 35. 1–5).K. F. C. Rose† & J. P. Sullivan - 1968 - Classical Quarterly 18 (01):180-.
Parenting in the Age of Preimplantation Gene Editing.Sigal Klipstein - 2017 - Hastings Center Report 47 (s3):S28-S33.