Human Editing: From Geneticization to New Forms of Equality and Identity

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 10
Author(s):  
Olga Popova
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Genetic Modification ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Genetic Enhancement ◽  
Human Species ◽  
Species Identity ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Therapeutic Context ◽  
The Veil

The article analyzes a number of philosophical problems caused by the emergence of the new genetic engineering tool CRISPR/Cas9 and the possible legitimization of genetic engineering technologies, in general. The non-therapeutic context of the use of the CRISPR/Cas9 tool is considered, and in this context the problem of future generations' rights and human species identity is analyzed. Using J. Rawls' idea of the “veil of ignorance”, the problem of the distribution of genetic advantages is analyzed and possible trajectories for its solution are demonstrated. The link between genetic enhancement and new forms of biosociality and inequality is presented. It is concluded that the rights of future generations in the competition of opposing ethical-philosophical attitudes will be problematized both within the framework of defending the attitude to the naturalness and in the context of defending human genetic modification.

The Demands of CRISPR’s World

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
J. Benjamin Hurlbut ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Human Life ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Genetic Enhancement ◽  
Germline Gene ◽  
Technical Possibility ◽  
Human Germline Gene Editing

A growing chorus of voices is declaring that CRISPR will revolutionize the ability to control life, including human life. As genetically altering future generations becomes technically realistic, it raises the prospect of genetic enhancement and the specter of eugenics. Prominent scientists are calling for international guidelines to govern human applications of gene-editing technology. They argue that the technical possibility of human germline gene editing makes ethical deliberation urgent. Now that the technology is upon us, the time has come to ask whether we want it. Human germline genetic engineering has long been marked as a morally significant boundary, and in numerous countries it is explicitly prohibited by law. The Oviedo Convention, a legally binding treaty among twenty-nine European countries, prohibits it as a violation of human rights and dignity. Nevertheless, numerous commentators argue that prohibitions made before it was technically possible meant little, and past proscriptions must now be revised.

Biocentrism, Religion and Synthetic Biology

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-35
Author(s):  
Robin Attfield
Keyword(s):  
Synthetic Biology ◽  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Moral Standing ◽  
Human Species ◽  
Moral Significance ◽  
Human Interventions

Biocentrism maintains that all living creatures have moral standing, but need not claim that all have equal moral significance. This moral standing extends to organisms generated through human interventions, whether by conventional breeding, genetic engineering, or synthetic biology. Our responsibilities with regard to future generations are relevant to non-human species as well as future human generations. Likewise, the Precautionary Principle raises objections to the generation of serious or irreversible harm or changes to the quality of human or non-human life, and needs to be applied when the introduction of synthetic biotechnology is envisaged. Consideration of this Principle supplements the problems raised for synthetic biology from a biocentric perspective. The bearing of biocentrism on religions is also considered, together with contrasting views about science, religion and the creation of life.

scholarly journals Genetic engineering and gene manipulation: the right (of future generations) to surprise

2021 ◽  
pp. 22
Author(s):  
Maria K. Chorianopoulou
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Genetic Enhancement ◽  
Unborn Child ◽  
Gene Manipulation ◽  
Genetic Stock ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

Genetic engineering is currently at the forefront of biotechnological innovation and aspires to change once and for ever the way we understand and handle human nature. Especially the growth of Eugenics makes us visualise a different world, where humanity will not only dispense itself from the detrimental gene mutations that are accountable for fatal illnesses, but will also ameliorate through prenatal gene manipulation. In the first part of this paper, I will introduce the responsibility-oriented morality of Hans Jonas, who supports vividly all efforts of negative Eugenics but seems sceptical about genetic enhancement, since on the one hand we have no right to decide on behalf of our descendants on what is best for them, and on the other due to his view that the abundance of our genetic stock should not hang on parents’ desires. In the second part, I will correlate these oppositions with Hannah Arendt’s concept of “natality”. Not only do Jonas and Habermas invoke it with applause; “natality” also discloses the very essence of birth, namely that each newborn epitomises total unpredictability and promises to renew human affairs. So, gene manipulation for enhancement purposes seems to encroach on “natality’s” dominion and diminish future autonomy. Finally, I will argue that, if Arendt’s conceptual frame consolidates objections to positive Eugenics, each unborn child holds a right to surprise, the content of which is not limited to an individual level but touches society and humanity.

Philosophical Aspects of 500-Year Planning

1988 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 1507-1522 ◽  
Author(s):  
B E Tonn
Keyword(s):  
Social Contract ◽  
Environmental Problems ◽  
Social Contract Theory ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Philosophical Foundation ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Long Time ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
The Veil

A class of environmental problems, termed 500-year problems, poses significant threats to the world's societies. In 500-year planning there is a need for a sound philosophical foundation to guide the development of appropriate methods which analyze problems that cover very long time periods and that involve large uncertainties. In this paper philosophical aspects of 500-year planning, related to determining whether present generations are meeting their obligations to future generations, are addressed. Topics discussed include the treatment of future populations (as identifiable individuals or as enumerable groups) and the appropriate base for 500-year planning (utilitarianism or social contract theory). Adopting Rawls's concepts of the original position and of the veil of ignorance, a social contract is developed that guarantees the possibility of existence for all potential individuals, and sets limits on the risks that current and future populations might endure as a result of their ancestors' abuse of the environment. The specifics of the contract represent rational criteria upon which to base 500-year planning activities.

scholarly journals What Do People Say When They Become “Future People”?―Positioning Imaginary Future Generations (IFGs) in General Rules for Good Decision-Making

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 6631
Author(s):  
Toshiaki Hiromitsu ◽  
Yoko Kitakaji ◽  
Keishiro Hara ◽  
Tatsuyoshi Saijo
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Good Decision ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Present Generation ◽  
General Rules ◽  
The Veil

In public decisions with long-term implications, decisions of the present generation will affect long-term welfare, including future generations. However, only the present generation is able to participate in such decision-making processes. In this study, we invited “Imaginary Future Generations” (IFGs), as participants in a discussion who take on the role of members of future generations to argue on behalf of their future interests to engage in present-day deliberations among residents of a Japanese town. Through analysis, it was seen that the deliberations among IFGs rose interest in issues that are related to common fundamental needs across generations. While the cognitive aspects of interpersonal reactivity, which measure the reactions of one individual to the observed experiences of another, were seen as useful in arguing for the interests of future generations, it was suggested that the environment for deliberation had a significant impact on the ability to effectively take on the role of members of future generations. Finally, this paper positioned IFGs within the broad context of general rules for good decision-making, based on an analysis of these deliberations and in light of philosophical arguments such as the veil of ignorance by John Rawls.

Habermas on Rawls and the normative foundations of democracy

2021 ◽  
pp. 136843102098541
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Kędziora
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Normative Foundation ◽  
Internal Relations ◽  
The Veil ◽  
Politics And Law ◽  
Normative Foundations

The debate between Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls concerns the question of how to do political philosophy under conditions of cultural pluralism, if the aim of political philosophy is to uncover the normative foundation of a modern liberal democracy. Rawls’s political liberalism tries to bypass the problem of pluralism, using the intellectual device of the veil of ignorance, and yet paradoxically at the same time it treats it as something given and as an arbiter of justification within the political conception of justice. Habermas argues that Rawls not only incorrectly operationalizes the moral point of view from which we discern what is just but also fails to capture the specificity of democracy which is given by internal relations between politics and law. This deprives Rawls’s political philosophy of the conceptual tools needed to articulate the normative foundation of democracy.

scholarly journals Moral Decision Making: From Bentham to Veil of Ignorance via Perspective Taking Accessibility

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Rose Martin ◽  
Petko Kusev ◽  
Joseph Teal ◽  
Victoria Baranova ◽  
Bruce Rigal
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Perspective Taking ◽  
Moral Decision ◽  
Moral Decision Making ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Moral Behaviour ◽  
New Type ◽  
The Veil ◽  
Theoretical Proposal

Making morally sensitive decisions and evaluations pervade many human everyday activities. Philosophers, economists, psychologists and behavioural scientists researching such decision-making typically explore the principles, processes and predictors that constitute human moral decision-making. Crucially, very little research has explored the theoretical and methodological development (supported by empirical evidence) of utilitarian theories of moral decision-making. Accordingly, in this critical review article, we invite the reader on a moral journey from Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism to the veil of ignorance reasoning, via a recent theoretical proposal emphasising utilitarian moral behaviour—perspective-taking accessibility (PT accessibility). PT accessibility research revealed that providing participants with access to all situational perspectives in moral scenarios, eliminates (previously reported in the literature) inconsistency between their moral judgements and choices. Moreover, in contrast to any previous theoretical and methodological accounts, moral scenarios/tasks with full PT accessibility provide the participants with unbiased even odds (neither risk averse nor risk seeking) and impartiality. We conclude that the proposed by Martin et al. PT Accessibility (a new type of veil of ignorance with even odds that do not trigger self-interest, risk related preferences or decision biases) is necessary in order to measure humans’ prosocial utilitarian behaviour and promote its societal benefits.

Taxation behind the veil of ignorance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Biung-Ghi Ju ◽  
Juan D. Moreno-Ternero
Keyword(s):  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
The Veil
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document