Macalester Journal of Philosophy 15 (1) (2006)
One of the most difficult issues to sort out morally is our obligation to future generations. Most individuals feel that they do indeed have some kind of obligation, but face difficulty in explaining the exact nature of the obligation. For one, it seems impossible to know the wants and desires of future generations, and furthermore the existence of the persons we are obligated to is entirely dependent upon the choices that we in fact make. In essence, we could shape future generations so that they desire exactly what we provide for them. It seems that no matter what principle we adopt that is based upon these potential individuals we are led to absurd conclusions. Gregory Kavka calls this moral grappling the Paradox of Future Individuals. I believe that the ethical concerns surrounding genetic engineering should be seen as a specific instantiation of this Paradox and that by examining both we may be able to come up with some sort of working solution. Derek Parfit pleads ignorance as to a solution to this Paradox after an extensive exegesis on the issue, but as we may not be that far from shopping a genetic supermarket to determine the characteristics of our children I don’t believe we can settle for that conclusion. We will begin by examining the Paradox and suggested solutions to the Paradox. Next I will address how the Paradox relates directly to genetic engineering and discuss how rights-based arguments aimed against genetic engineering fail because of the nature of identity. Then I will consider how David Heyd’s Genero-centric principle applies to genetic engineering specifically and how a modified version of that principle may guide us out of the Paradox of Future Individuals in general. This solution may not be acceptable to utilitarian sensibilities, but it is because the numbers don’t add up that we may need to appeal to a different principle entirely
|Keywords||personal identity genetic modification future generations|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
From What Should We Protect Future Generations: Germ-Line Therapy or Genetic Screening?Pierre Mallia & Henk ten Have - 2003 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6 (1):17-24.
The Wisdom of Caution: Genetic Enhancement and Future Children.Jason Borenstein - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):517-530.
Commentary: Maintaining the Somatic/Germ-Line Distinction: Some Ethical Drawbacks.Ray Moseley - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (6):641-647.
Genes and Future People: Philosophical Issues in Human Genetics.Walter Glannon - 2001 - Westview Press.
Climate Change and the Rights of Future Generations.William J. FitzPatrick - 2007 - Environmental Ethics 29 (4):369-388.
Conservation, Foresight, and the Future Generations Problem.Steve Vanderheiden - 2006 - Inquiry 49 (4):337 – 352.
Future Generations and the Metaphysics of the Self: Western and Indian Philosophical Perspectives.Roy W. Perrett - 2003 - Asian Philosophy 13 (1):29 – 37.
The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering.Russell Powell - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (1):22.
Genetic Enhancement and Parental Obligation.Larry A. Herzberg - 2007 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (2):98-111.
Negative “GHIs,” the Right to Health Protection, and Future Generations.Jan Deckers - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (2):165-176.
Parenting and Intergenerational Justice: Why Collective Obligations Towards Future Generations Take Second Place to Individual Responsibility. [REVIEW]M. L. J. Wissenburg - 2011 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (6):557-573.
Added to index2010-09-09
Total downloads94 ( #54,320 of 2,163,616 )
Recent downloads (6 months)27 ( #12,752 of 2,163,616 )
How can I increase my downloads?