Results for 'procreative beneficence'

966 found
Order:
  1. Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children.Julian Savulescu - 2001 - Bioethics 15 (5-6):413-426.
    We have a reason to use information which is available about such genes in our reproductive decision-making; (3) couples should selec.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   193 citations  
  2. Procreative Beneficence and Genetic Enhancement.Walter Veit - 2018 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 32 (1):75-92.
    Imagine a world where everyone is healthy, intelligent, long living and happy. Intuitively this seems wonderful albeit unrealistic. However, recent scienti c breakthroughs in genetic engineering, namely CRISPR/Cas bring the question into public discourse, how the genetic enhancement of humans should be evaluated morally. In 2001, when preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF), enabled parents to select between multiple embryos, Julian Savulescu introduced the principle of procreative bene cence (PPB), stating that parents have the obligations to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3. Procreative Beneficence – Cui Bono?Jakob Elster - 2011 - Bioethics 25 (9):482-488.
    Recently, Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane have defended the Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB), according to which prospective parents ought to select children with the view that their future child has ‘the best chance of the best life’. I argue that the arguments Savulescu and Kahane adduce in favour of PB equally well support what I call the Principle of General Procreative Beneficence (GPB). GPB states that couples ought to select children in view of maximizing the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  4. Procreative Beneficence, Obligation, and Eugenics.Robert Sparrow - 2007 - Genomics, Society and Policy 3 (3):43-59.
    The argument of Julian Savulescu’s 2001 paper, “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children” is flawed in a number of respects. Savulescu confuses reasons with obligations and equivocates between the claim that parents have some reason to want the best for their children and the more radical claim that they are morally obligated to attempt to produce the best child possible. Savulescu offers a prima facie implausible account of parental obligation, as even the best parents typically (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  5.  28
    Procreative Beneficence and in Vitro Gametogenesis.Hannah Bourne, Thomas Douglas & Julian Savulescu - 2012 - Monash Bioethics Review 30 (2):29-48.
    The Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB) holds that when a couple plans to have a child, they have significant moral reason to select, of the possible children they could have, the child who is most likely to experience the greatest wellbeing – that is, the most advantaged child, the child with the best chance at the best life.1 PB captures the common sense intuitions of many about reproductive decisions. PB does not posit an absolute moral obligation – it (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  6.  80
    Procreative Beneficence and the Prospective Parent.P. Herissone-Kelly - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (3):166-169.
    Julian Savulescu has given clear expression to a principle—that of “procreative beneficence”—which underlies the thought of many contemporary writers on bioethics. The principle of procreative beneficence holds that parents or single reproducers are at least prima facie obliged to select the child, out of a range of possible children they might have, who will be likely to lead the best life. My aim in this paper is to argue that prospective parents, just by dint of their (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  7.  39
    Procreative Beneficence, Intelligence, and the Optimization Problem.Ben Saunders - 2015 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (6):653-668.
    According to the Principle of Procreative Beneficence, reproducers should choose the child, of those available to them, expected to have the best life. Savulescu argues reproducers are therefore morally obligated to select for nondisease traits, such as intelligence. Carter and Gordon recently challenged this implication, arguing that Savulescu fails to establish that intelligence promotes well-being. This paper develops two responses. First, I argue that higher intelligence is likely to contribute to well-being on most plausible accounts. Second, I argue (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8. In Defence of Procreative Beneficence.J. Savulescu - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (5):284-288.
    Why potential parents should select the best child of possible children, and the necessity of a dialogue about the context of a reproductive decision.The principle of Procreative Beneficence is the principle of selecting the best child of the possible children one could have. This principle is elaborated on and defended against a range of objections. In particular, focus is laid on four objections that Michael Parker raises: that it is underdetermining, that it is insensitive to the complex nature (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  9. The Principle of Procreative Beneficence: Old Arguments and A New Challenge.Andrew Hotke - 2014 - Bioethics 28 (5):255-262.
    In the last ten years, there have been a number of attempts to refute Julian Savulescu's Principle of Procreative Beneficence; a principle which claims that parents have a moral obligation to have the best child that they can possibly have. So far, no arguments against this principle have succeeded at refuting it. This paper tries to explain the shortcomings of some of the more notable arguments against this principle. I attempt to break down the argument for the principle (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  10.  63
    Is Procreative Beneficence Obligatory?Ben Saunders - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (2):175-178.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  11.  95
    Intelligence, Wellbeing and Procreative Beneficence.J. Adam Carter & Emma C. Gordon - 2013 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):122-135.
    If Savulescu's controversial principle of Procreative Beneficence is correct, then an important implication is that couples should employ genetic tests for non-disease traits in selecting which child to bring into existence. Both defenders as well as some critics of this normative entailment of PB have typically accepted the comparatively less controversial claim about non-disease traits: that there are non-disease traits such that testing and selecting for them would in fact contribute to bringing about the child who is expected (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  12.  25
    Procreative Beneficence, Diversity, Intersubjectivity, and Imprecision.Julian Savulescu - 2015 - American Journal of Bioethics 15 (6):16-18.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  13. The Fallacy of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence.Rebecca Bennett - 2009 - Bioethics 23 (5):265-273.
    The claim that we have a moral obligation, where a choice can be made, to bring to birth the 'best' child possible, has been highly controversial for a number of decades. More recently Savulescu has labelled this claim the Principle of Procreative Beneficence. It has been argued that this Principle is problematic in both its reasoning and its implications, most notably in that it places lower moral value on the disabled. Relentless criticism of this proposed moral obligation, however, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  14.  38
    On the Partiality of Procreative Beneficence: A Critical Note.Thomas Søbirk Petersen - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (9):771-774.
    The aim of this paper is to criticise the well-discussed Principle of Procreative Beneficence (PB) lately refined by Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane. First, it is argued that advocates of PB leave us with an implausible justification for the moral partiality towards the child (or children) reproducers decide to bring into existence as compared with all other individuals. This is implausible because the reasons given in favour of the partiality of PB, which are based on practical reason and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  15.  98
    When Intuition is Not Enough. Why the Principle of Procreative Beneficence Must Work Much Harder to Justify Its Eugenic Vision.Rebecca Bennett - 2014 - Bioethics 28 (9):447-455.
    The Principle of Procreative Beneficence claims that we have a moral obligation, where choice is possible, to choose to create the best child we can. The existence of this moral obligation has been proposed by John Harris and Julian Savulescu and has proved controversial on many levels, not least that it is eugenics, asking us to produce the best children we can, not for the sake of that child's welfare, but in order to make a better society. These (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  16.  11
    Substituted Judgment, Procreative Beneficence, and the Ashley Treatment.Thomas Douglas - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (9):721-722.
    It is commonly thought that when a patient is unable to make a treatment decision for herself, patient autonomy should be respected by consulting the views of a patient surrogate, normally either the next-of-kin or a person previously designated by the patient. On one view, the task of this surrogate is to make the treatment decision that the patient would have made if competent. But this so-called ‘substituted judgment standard’ (SJS) has come in for has come in for a good (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17.  47
    Reasons, Rationalities, and Procreative Beneficence: Need Häyry Stand Politely By While Savulescu and Herissone-Kelly Disagree?Peter N. Herissone-Kelly - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (2):258-267.
    The claim that the answers we give to many of the central questions in genethics will depend crucially upon the particular rationality we adopt in addressing them is central to Matti Häyry’s thorough and admirably fair-minded book, Rationality and the Genetic Challenge. That claim implies, of course, that there exists a plurality of rationalities, or discrete styles of reasoning, that can be deployed when considering concrete moral problems. This, indeed, is Häyry’s position. Although he believes that there are certain features (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  18.  53
    The Case Against the Case for Procreative Beneficence.Alan Holland - 2016 - Bioethics 30 (7):490-499.
    Julian Savulescu's principle of procreative beneficence states that, other things being equal, and of the possible children they could have, a couple contemplating procreation are morally obliged to procreate the child with the best chance of the best life. The critique of PB is in three parts. The first part argues that PB rests on a particular conception of the good life, and that alternative conceptions of the good life afford no obvious way in which PB can be (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19.  27
    The Proper Scope of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence Revisited.Søren Holm & Rebecca Bennett - 2014 - Monash Bioethics Review 32 (1-2):22-32.
    The principle of procreative beneficence, first suggested by Julian Savulescu, argues that: If couples have decided to have a child, and selection is possible, then they have a significant moral reason to select the child, of the possible children they could have, whose life is expected, in light of the relevant available information, to go best or at least not worse than any of the others. While the validity of this moral principle has been widely contested, in this (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  20. The Real Force of 'Procreative Beneficence'.Robert Sparrow - 2014 - In Akira Akayabashi (ed.), The Future of Bioethics: International Dialogues. Oxford University Press. pp. 183-192.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  21.  1
    Person-Affecting Procreative Beneficence.Sergio Filippo Magni - 2020 - Phenomenology and Mind 19:124.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22.  18
    The Lack of an Obligation to Select the Best Child: Silencing the Principle of Procreative Beneficence.Peter N. Herissone-Kelly - 2017 - In Kristien Hens, Daniela Cutas & Dorothee Horstkötter (eds.), Parental Responsibility in the Context of Neuroscience and Genetics. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. pp. 153-166.
    This chapter aims to show that prospective parents are not bound in their reproductive decision making by a principle of procreative beneficence. That is, they have no obligation to choose the possible child, from a range of possible children they might have, who is likely to lead the best life. I will summarise and clarify the content of previous papers of mine, in which I argue that since the sorts of considerations that underlie the principle of procreative (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. Wrongs, Preferences, and the Selection of Children: A Critique of Rebecca Bennett's Argument Against the Principle of Procreative Beneficence.Peter Herissone-Kelly - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (8):447-454.
    Rebecca Bennett, in a recent paper dismissing Julian Savulescu's principle of procreative beneficence, advances both a negative and a positive thesis. The negative thesis holds that the principle's theoretical foundation – the notion of impersonal harm or non-person-affecting wrong – is indefensible. Therefore, there can be no obligations of the sort that the principle asserts. The positive thesis, on the other hand, attempts to plug an explanatory gap that arises once the principle has been rejected. That is, it (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24.  82
    Wrongs, Preferences, and the Selection of Children: A Critique of Rebecca Bennett's Argument Against the Principle of Procreative Beneficence.Peter Herissone-Kelly - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (8):447-454.
    Rebecca Bennett, in a recent paper dismissing Julian Savulescu's principle of procreative beneficence, advances both a negative and a positive thesis. The negative thesis holds that the principle's theoretical foundation--the notion of impersonal harm or non-person-affecting wrong--is indefensible. Therefore, there can be no obligations of the sort that the principle asserts. The positive thesis, on the other hand, attempts to plug an explanatory gap that arises once the principle has been rejected. That is, it holds that the intuitions (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25.  49
    Why Procreative Preferences May Be Moral – And Why It May Not Matter If They Aren't.Ben Saunders - 2015 - Bioethics 29 (7):499-506.
    There has been much argument over whether procreative selection is obligatory or wrong. Rebecca Bennett has recently challenged the assumption that procreative choices are properly moral choices, arguing that these views express mere preferences. This article challenges Bennett's view on two fronts. First, I argue that the Non-Identity Problem does not show that there cannot be harmless wrongs – though this would require us to abandon the intuitively attractive ‘person-affecting principle’, that may be a lesser cost than abandoning (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  26.  66
    Beneficence, Determinism and Justice: An Engagement with the Argument for the Genetic Selection of Intelligence.Kean Birch - 2005 - Bioethics 19 (1):12–28.
    ABSTRACTIn 2001, Julian Savulescu wrote an article entitled ‘Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children’, in which he argued for the genetic selection of intelligence in children. That article contributes to a debate on whether genetic research on intelligence should be undertaken at all and, if so, should intelligence selection be available to potential parents. As such, the question of intelligence selection relates to wider issues concerning the genetic determination of behavioural traits, i.e. alcoholism. This article (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  27.  45
    First, Do No Harm: Generalized Procreative Non‐Maleficence.Ben Saunders - 2017 - Bioethics 31 (7):552-558.
    New reproductive technologies allow parents some choice over their children. Various moral principles have been suggested to regulate such choices. This article starts from a discussion of Julian Savulescu's Principle of Procreative Beneficence, according to which parents ought to choose the child expected to have the best quality of life, before combining two previously separate lines of attack against this principle. First, it is suggested that the appropriate moral principles of guiding reproductive choices ought to focus on general (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  28. The Moral Obligation to Create Children with the Best Chance of the Best Life.Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane - 2009 - Bioethics 23 (5):274-290.
    According to what we call the Principle of Procreative Beneficence, couples who decide to have a child have a significant moral reason to select the child who, given his or her genetic endowment, can be expected to enjoy the most well-being. In the first part of this paper, we introduce PB, explain its content, grounds, and implications, and defend it against various objections. In the second part, we argue that PB is superior to competing principles of procreative (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   100 citations  
  29. Welcoming Robots Into the Moral Circle: A Defence of Ethical Behaviourism.John Danaher - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (4):2023-2049.
    Can robots have significant moral status? This is an emerging topic of debate among roboticists and ethicists. This paper makes three contributions to this debate. First, it presents a theory – ‘ethical behaviourism’ – which holds that robots can have significant moral status if they are roughly performatively equivalent to other entities that have significant moral status. This theory is then defended from seven objections. Second, taking this theoretical position onboard, it is argued that the performative threshold that robots need (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  30. Well-Being, Disability, and Choosing Children.Matthew J. Barker & Robert A. Wilson - 2019 - Mind 128 (510):305-328.
    The view that it is better for life to be created free of disability is pervasive in both common sense and philosophy. We cast doubt on this view by focusing on an influential line of thinking that manifests it. That thinking begins with a widely-discussed principle, Procreative Beneficence, and draws conclusions about parental choice and disability. After reconstructing two versions of this argument, we critique the first by exploring the relationship between different understandings of well-being and disability, and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  31. Why We Are Not Morally Required to Select the Best Children: A Response to Savulescu.Sarah E. Stoller - 2008 - Bioethics 22 (7):364-369.
    The purpose of this paper is to review critically Julian Savulescu's principle of 'Procreative Beneficence,' which holds that prospective parents are morally obligated to select, of the possible children they could have, those with the greatest chance of leading the best life. According to this principle, prospective parents are obliged to use the technique of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) to select for the 'best' embryos, a decision that ought to be made based on the presence or absence of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  32.  43
    Human Capabilities, Mild Autism, Deafness and the Morality of Embryo Selection.Pier Jaarsma & Stellan Welin - 2013 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16 (4):817-824.
    A preimplantation genetic test to discriminate between severe and mild autism spectrum disorder might be developed in the foreseeable future. Recently, the philosophers Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane claimed that there are strong reasons for prospective parents to make use of such a test to prevent the birth of children who are disposed to autism or Asperger’s disorder. In this paper we will criticize this claim. We will discuss the morality of selection for mild autism in embryo selection in a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  33. Termination of Pregnancy After NonInvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Ethical Considerations.Tom Shakespeare & Richard Hull - 2018 - Journal of Practical Ethics 6 (2):32-54.
    This article explores the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ recent report about non-invasive prenatal testing. Given that such testing is likely to become the norm, it is important to question whether there should be some ethical parameters regarding its use. The article engages with the viewpoints of Jeff McMahan, Julian Savulescu, Stephen Wilkinson and other commentators on prenatal ethics. The authors argue that there are a variety of moral considerations that legitimately play a significant role with regard to (prospective) parental decision-making (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Resisting Sparrow's Sexy Reductio : Selection Principles and the Social Good.Simon Rippon, Pablo Stafforini, Katrien Devolder, Russell Powell & Thomas Douglas - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (7):16-18.
    Principles of procreative beneficence (PPBs) hold that parents have good reasons to select the child with the best life prospects. Sparrow (2010) claims that PPBs imply that we should select only female children, unlesswe attach normative significance to “normal” human capacities. We argue that this claim fails on both empirical and logical grounds. Empirically, Sparrow’s argument for greater female wellbeing rests on a selective reading of the evidence and the incorrect assumption that an advantage for females would persist (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  35.  73
    The Best Possible Child.M. Parker - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (5):279-283.
    Julian Savulescu argues for two principles of reproductive ethics: reproductive autonomy and procreative beneficence, where the principle of procreative beneficence is conceptualised in terms of a duty to have the child, of the possible children that could be had, who will have the best opportunity of the best life. Were it to be accepted, this principle would have significant implications for the ethics of reproductive choice and, in particular, for the use of prenatal testing and other (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  36.  88
    Futures of Reproduction: Bioethics and Biopolitics.Catherine Mills - 2011 - Springer.
    Issues in reproductive ethics, such as the capacity of parents to ‘choose children’, present challenges to philosophical ideas of freedom, responsibility and harm. This book responds to these challenges by proposing a new framework for thinking about the ethics of reproduction that emphasizes the ways that social norms affect decisions about who is born. The book provides clear and thorough discussions of some of the dominant problems in reproductive ethics - human enhancement and the notion of the normal, reproductive liberty (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  37. A Subjectivist Solution to the Problem of Harm in Genetic Enhancement.Sruthi Rothenfluch - 2015 - Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics 3 (4).
    Some have recently argued that parents are morally obligated, under certain circumstances, to use pre-natal genetic intervention as a means of enhancement. Despite aiming to benefit the child, such intervention may produce serious and irreparable harm. In these cases, parents seem to have an obligation not to intervene, as such efforts make the child worse off. Julian Savulesu has argued that while harm raises doubts about the acceptability of genetic enhancement, genetic selection remains an obligation. This claim, however, rests on (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  38.  31
    Disabled by Design: Justifying and Limiting Parental Authority to Choose Future Children with Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis.Joseph Stramondo - 2017 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 27 (4):475-500.
    Like any philosophically interesting health care practice, ethical analysis of Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis has produced a wide range of moral positions. For example, one might contrast David King's view that warns PGD should be strictly limited and regulated because it will soon result in the expansion of a troubling "laissez-faire eugenics" with Julian Savulescu's argument for the "principle of procreative beneficence" morally requiring parents to use information attained through PGD to select the "best child". That is, these authors (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  39. Two Varieties of “Better-For” Judgements.Peter Herissone-Kelly - 2009 - In David Wasserman & Melinda Roberts (eds.), Harming Future Persons. Springer. pp. 249--263.
    This paper argues against Julian Savulescu's principle of procreative beneficence. It maintains that prospective parents have no obligation at all to choose the child, out of a range of possible children, who is likely to lead the best life. This is because a standpoint that the author labels "the internal perspective" is a perfectly appropriate one for parents to adopt when thinking about their own future children. It is only policy makers who are obliged to take up an (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  40.  38
    Failures of Imagination: Disability and the Ethics of Selective Reproduction.Marta Soniewicka - 2015 - Bioethics 29 (8):557-563.
    The article addresses the problem of disability in the context of reproductive decisions based on genetic information. It poses the question of whether selective procreation should be considered as a moral obligation of prospective parents. To answer this question, a number of different ethical approaches to the problem are presented and critically analysed: the utilitarian; Julian Savulescu's principle of procreative beneficence; the rights-based. The main thesis of the article is that these approaches fail to provide any appealing principles (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  41.  18
    Reproductive Autonomy: A Case Study.David Hall & Anton van Niekerk - 2016 - South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 9 (2):61-61.
    Reproductive autonomy has been challenged by the availability of genetic information, disability and the ethics of selective reproduction. Utilitarian and rights-based approaches, as well as procreative beneficence fail to provide compelling reasons for infringing RA, and may even be likened to dangerous eugenics. Parents are not morally obliged to prevent the birth of a disabled child. Society should rather adopt inclusivity, recognising and providing persons with disabilities opportunities for capability and worthwhile lives.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  42. An Argument in Favor of Human Genetic Enhancement.Peter West-Oram - 2008 - Dissertation, Queen's University
    Thesis (Master, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2008-09-18 17:05:35.143. -/- Human Genetic Enhancement (HGE) has the potential to provide great benefits to a large number of people in terms of alleviating inherited disease and disability and maximizing individual liberty. There are many arguments against research and application of this new technology based on a variety of grounds, including both deontological and consequentialist objections. In this thesis I examine arguments from both of these positions and argue that neither offers a satisfactory justification (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43.  11
    The Aims of Expanded Universal Carrier Screening: Autonomy, Prevention, and Responsible Parenthood.Sanne van der Hout, Wybo Dondorp & Guido de Wert - 2019 - Bioethics 33 (5):568-576.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  44.  62
    “Unfit for Life”: A Case Study of Protector-Protected Analogies in Recent Advocacy of Eugenics and Coercive Genetic Discrimination. [REVIEW]Mark Munsterhjelm - 2011 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (2):177-189.
    This paper utilizes Iris Marion Young’s critical, post-9/11 reading of Thomas Hobbes, as a theorist of authoritarian government grounded in fear of threat (Young 2003). Applying Young’s reading of Hobbes to the high-profile ethicist Julian Savulescu’s advocacy of genetic enhancement reveals an underlying unjust discrimination in Savulescu’s use of patriarchal protector–protected analogies between family and state. First, the paper shows how Savulescu’s concept of procreative beneficence, in which parents use genetic selection to have children who will have the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  45.  28
    Sexism and Human Enhancement.Robert Sparrow - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (12):732-735.
    Given the morally disastrous history of eugenics, one might have thought that contemporary advocates of genetic human enhancement would be especially mindful of the historical resonances of the arguments they put forward. Two aspects of Paula Casal's defence of enhancement against my recent criticisms are therefore more than a little surprising.1i First, her hypothetical case for sex selection for ‘moral enhancement’ relies on claims drawn from sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, which are at best controversial and at worst represent pseudo-scientific rationalisations (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46. A Defense of Dignity: Creating Life, Destroying Life, and Protecting the Rights of Conscience.Christopher Kaczor - 2013 - University of Notre Dame Press.
    Questions about the dignity of the human person give rise to many of the most central and hotly disputed topics in bioethics. In _A Defense of Dignity: Creating Life, Destroying Life, and Protecting the Rights of Conscience_, Christopher Kaczor investigates whether each human being has intrinsic dignity and whether the very concept of "dignity" has a useful place in contemporary ethical debates. Kaczor explores a broad range of issues addressed in contemporary bioethics, including whether there is a duty of " (...) beneficence," the ethics of ectopic pregnancy, and the possibility of "rescuing" human embryos with human wombs or artificial wombs. _A Defense of Dignity_ also treats issues relevant to the end of life, including physician-assisted suicide, provision of food and water to patients in a persistent vegetative state, and how to proceed with organ donation following death. Finally, what are the duties and prerogatives of health care professionals who refuse in conscience to take part in activities that they regard as degrading to human dignity? Should they be forced to do what they consider to be violations of the patient's well being, or does patient autonomy always trump the conscience of a health care professional? Grounded in the Catholic intellectual and moral tradition, _A Defense of Dignity_ argues that all human beings from the beginning to the end of their lives should be treated with respect and considers how this belief should be applied in controversial cases. "_A Defense of Dignity_ provides a skillful, informed, and clear philosophical analysis, from a natural law perspective, of a range of controversial, and sometimes complex, bioethical questions concerning the beginning and end of life. Few authors approach bioethics from a natural law perspective, and few do it as well as Christopher Kaczor. The book should be of interest not only to natural law philosophers and their students, but also to anyone interested in bioethics." —_John Keown, Georgetown University__ "Moral questions at the beginning and ending of life and controversies over liberty of conscience are among the most vexing and important issues of our day. Christopher Kaczor brings his characteristic moral seriousness and philosophical good sense to his treatment of these issues, all of which implicate the key concept of human dignity. This eminently readable collection will provide an invaluable resource for educators and students alike." — Christopher Tollefsen, University of South Carolina_ “Indispensable. Kaczor untangles the various meanings of human dignity to undertake a reexamination of the most serious and difficult issues in medical ethics. The book combines clarity with philosophical precision, faithfulness to Catholic teaching with a thorough engagement with critics." —_J. Budziszewski, University of Texas at Austin_. (shrink)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  66
    “Ethical Minefields” and the Voice of Common Sense: A Discussion with Julian Savulescu.Julian Savulescu & Evangelos D. Protopapadakis - 2019 - Conatus - Journal of Philosophy 4 (1):125-133.
    Theoretical ethics includes both metaethics (the meaning of moral terms) and normative ethics (ethical theories and principles). Practical ethics involves making decisions about every day real ethical problems, like decisions about euthanasia, what we should eat, climate change, treatment of animals, and how we should live. It utilizes ethical theories, like utilitarianism and Kantianism, and principles, but more broadly a process of reflective equilibrium and consistency to decide how to act and be.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48. Parental Partiality and Future Children.Thomas Douglas - 2019 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 15 (1).
    Prospective parents are sometimes partial towards their future children, engaging in what I call ‘pre-parental partiality’. Common sense morality is as permissive of pre-parental partiality as it is of ordinary parental partiality—partiality towards one’s existing children. But I argue that existing justifications for partiality typically establish weaker reasons in support of pre-parental partiality than in support of parental partiality. Thus, either these existing justifications do not fully account for our reasons of parental partiality, or our reasons to engage in pre-parental (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. In Defense of Artificial Replacement.Derek Shiller - 2017 - Bioethics 31 (2):393-399.
    If it is within our power to provide a significantly better world for future generations at a comparatively small cost to ourselves, we have a strong moral reason to do so. One way of providing a significantly better world may involve replacing our species with something better. It is plausible that in the not-too-distant future, we will be able to create artificially intelligent creatures with whatever physical and psychological traits we choose. Granted this assumption, it is argued that we should (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  50.  19
    Parental Virtue and Prenatal Genetic Alteration Research.Ryan Tonkens - 2015 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12 (4):651-664.
    Although the philosophical literature on the ethics of human prenatal genetic alteration purports to inform us about how to act, it rarely explicitly recognizes the perspective of those who will be making the PGA decision in practice. Here I approach the ethics of PGA from a distinctly virtue-based perspective, taking seriously what it means to be a good parent making this decision for one’s child. From this perspective, I generate a sound verdict on the moral standing of human PGA : (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 966