: The current difference in attitude toward germ-line enhancement in humans and nonhumans is unjustified. Society should be more cautious in modifying the genes of nonhumans and more bold in thinking about modifying our own genome. I identify four classes of arguments pertaining to germ-line enhancement: safety arguments, justice arguments, trust arguments, and naturalness arguments. The first three types are compelling, but do not distinguish between human and nonhuman cases. The final class of argument would justify a distinction between human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement; however, this type of argument fails and, therefore, the discrepancy in attitude toward human and nonhuman germ-line enhancement is unjustified
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1353/ken.2005.0005
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Germ-Line Gene Therapy and the Medical Imperative.Ronald Munson & Lawrence H. Davis - 1992 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2 (2):137-158.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Genetic Enhancement: Plan Now to Act Later.Maxwell J. Mehlman - 2005 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (1):77-82.
The Human Genome Project.Lisa Gannett - 2009 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Enhancement umano: un dibattito in corso.Boris Rähme, Lucia Galvagni & Alberto Bondolfi (eds.) - 2014 - L'Arco di Giano - Rivista di Medical Humanities.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
586 ( #9,759 of 2,403,526 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
32 ( #25,675 of 2,403,526 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes