Enhancing Autonomy, Authenticity And Selecting The Child With The Best Moral Life
Keywords:moral enhancement, autonomy, authenticity, assisted reproduction, Procreative Beneficence, Procreative Altruism, pharmaceuticals, Prozac, Modafinil, the right to an open future, disabilities, genetic manipulation, cognitive enhancement
In the human enhancement literature, there is a recurrent fear that biomedical technologies will negatively impact the autonomy and authenticity of moral agents, even when the agents would end up having better capacities and an improved life with the aid of these technologies. I will explore several ways in which biomedical enhancement may improve the autonomy of moral agents and try to show that biomedical methods are, all things considered, beneficial to our autonomy and authenticity. I will argue that there are instances when it’s desirable to limit the autonomy of moral agents and that strict regulations are to be put in place if a great number of people will have easy access to powerful, genetic-altering technologies which can impact the life of future children. I will advocate for using assisted reproductive technologies in order to select the child with the best chance of the best moral life and in doing so I will analyse several procreative principles which have been proposed by different scholars in the genetic enhancement debate and try to determine which one would be best to adhere to. Usually, people place high value on the concept of autonomy and there are many cases in which they end up overestimating autonomy in relation to other moral values. While autonomy is important, it’s also important to know how to limit it when reasonable societal norms require it. Sometimes autonomy is defined in strong connection with the concept of authenticity, in the sense that it’s not sufficient for our choices to be autonomous if they are not also authentic. I will try to defend the idea that authenticity can be enhanced as well with the aid of enhancement technologies which can actually prove beneficial in our quest to improve our own self.
Agar, N. (2004). Liberal Eugenics: In Defense of Human Enhancement. Blackwell.
Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and non-depressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108(4), 441-485. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-3422.214.171.1241
Anomaly, J. (2020). Creating future people: The Ethics of Genetic Enhancement. Routledge.
Baruch, S., Kaufman, D., & Hudson, K. L. (2008). Genetic testing of embryos: practices and perspectives of US IVF clinics. Fertil Steril, 89, 1053-1058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.048
Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed). Oxford University Press.
Bernofsky, B. (1995). Liberation from self: A theory of personal autonomy. Cambridge University Press.
Bostrom, N. (2005). In Defence of Posthuman Dignity. Bioethics, 19(3), 202-214. http://www.psy.vanderbilt.edu/courses/hon182/Posthuman_dignity_Bostrom.pdf
Bostrom, N., & Ord, T. (2006), The Reversal Test: Eliminating the Status Quo Bias in Applied Ethics. Ethics, 116(4), 656-679. https://doi.org/10.1086/505233
Bruno, M. A., Pellas, F., Bernheim, J. L., Ledoux, D., Goldman, S., Demertzi, A., Majerus, S., Vanhaudenhuyse, A., Blandin, V., Boly, M., Boveroux, P., Moonen, G., Laureys, S., & Schnakers, S. (2008). Quelle vie après le Locked-in Syndrome? Revue Médicale de Liège, 63(5-6), 445-451. https://www.rmlg.ulg.ac.be/show.php
Bublitz, J. C., & Merkel, R. (2009). Autonomy and authenticity of enhanced personality traits. Bioethics, 23(6), 360-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01725.x
Chadwick, R., Shickle, D., ten Have, H., & Wiesing, U. (Eds.). (1999). The Ethics of Genetic Screening. Kluwer.
Christman, J. (1988). Constructing the inner citadel: Recent work on the concept of autonomy. Ethics, 99(1), 109-124. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/293038
Darwall, S. (2006). The value of autonomy and autonomy of the will. Ethics, 116(2), 263-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/498461
Davis, D. (1997). Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. The Hastings Center Report, 27(2), 7-15. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527620
Davis, D. (2009). The parental investment factor and the child’s right to an open future. The Hastings Center Report, 39(2), 24-27. https://doi.org/10.1353/hcr.0.0125
DeGrazia, D. (2000). Prozac, enhancement, and self-creation. Hastings Center Report, 30(2), 34-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3528313
Douglas, T., & Devolder, K. (2013). Procreative Altruism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 38, 400-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jht022
Dworkin, G. (1988). The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge University.
Earp, B. D., & Savulescu, J. (2020). Love drugs: The Chemical future of Relationships. Stanford University Press.
Elliott, C. (1998). The tyranny of happiness: Ethics and cosmetic psychopharmacology. In E. Parens (Ed.), Enhancing Human Traits. Ethical and Social Implications (pp. 177-188). Georgetown University Press.
Feinberg, J. (1992). Freedom and fulfillment: Philosophical essays. Princeton University Press.
Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5-20. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2024717
Frankfurt, H. (1999). The Faintest Passion. Necessity, Volition, Love. Cambridge University Press.
Gillon, R. (2003). Ethics Needs Principles - Four Can Encompass the Rest - and Respect for Autonomy Should Be “First among Equals”. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(5), 307-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.5.307
Habermas, J. (2003). The future of human nature. Polity Press.
Henrich, J. (2015). The Secret of Our Success. Princeton University Press.
Juth, N. (2011). Enhancement, autonomy, and authenticity. In J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen & and G. Kahane (Eds.), Enhancing human capacities (pp. 34-48). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kant, I. (1996). Practical Philosophy (M. J. Gregor, Trans. & Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Kass, L. (2003). Ageless bodies, happy souls. biotechnology and the pursuit of perfection. The New Atlantis, 1, 9-28. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/ageless-bodies-happy-souls
Kramer, P. D. (1993). Listening to Prozac. Penguin.
Levy, N. (2002). Deafness, culture and choice. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(5), 284-285. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Fjme.28.5.284
Levy, N. (2011). Enhancing authenticity. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 28(3), 308-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2011.00532.x
Levy, N. (2012). Ecological engineering: Reshaping our environments to achieve our goals. Philosophy & Technology, 25(4), 589-604. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13347-012-0065-8
Malmqvist, E. (2011). Reprogenetics and the ‘Parents Have Always Done It’ Argument. Hastings Center Report, 41(1), 43-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-146X.2011.tb00099.x
Mill, J. S. (2003). On Liberty. Yale University Press.
Mundy, L. (2002, March 31). A world of their own. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/2002/03/31/a-world-of-their-own/abba2bbf-af01-4b55-912c-85aa46e98c6b/
O’Neill, O. (2009). Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606250
Parens, E. (1988). Authenticity and ambivalence: Toward understanding the enhancement debate. Hastings Center Report, 35(3), 34-41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3528804
Prusak, B. G. (2005). Rethinking ‘Liberal Eugenics’: Reflections and Questions on Habermas on Bioethics. Hastings Center Report; 35(6), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1353/hcr.2005.0113
Pugh, J. (2014). Enhancing Autonomy by Reducing Impulsivity: The Case of ADHD. Neuroethics, 7, 373-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9202-7
Pugh, J. (2015). Autonomy, natality and freedom: a liberal re-examination of Habermas in the enhancement debate. Bioethics, 29(3), 145-152. http://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12082
Sandel, M. J. (2007). The case against perfection. Belknap.
Sartre, J. P. (1955). Being and Nothingness. Washington Square Press.
Savulescu, J. (2002). Education and debate: Deaf lesbians, ‘designer disability,’ and the future of medicine. British Medical Journal, 325(7367), 771-773. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.325.7367.771
Savulescu, J., & Kahane, G. (2009). The moral obligation to create children with the best chance of the best life. Bioethics, 23(5), 274-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00687.x
Schaefer, G. O., Kahane, G., & Savulescu, J. (2014). Autonomy and Enhancement. Neuroethics, 7(2), 123-136. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s12152-013-9189-5
Shiffrin, S. (1999). Wrongful Life, Procreative Responsibility, and the Significance of Harm. Legal Theory, 5(2), 117-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1352325299052015
Singh, I., & Kelleher, K. (2010). Neuroenhancement in young people: proposal for research, policy, and clinical management. AJOB Neuroscience, 1, 3-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21507740903508591
Spriggs, M. (2002). Lesbian couple create a child who is deaf like them. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(5), 283. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Fjme.28.5.283
Taylor, C. (1992). The Ethics of Authenticity. Harvard University Press.
Wertz, D. C., & Fletcher J. C. (1988). Attitudes of genetic counsellors: A multinational survey. American Journal of Human Genetics, 42(4), 592-600. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1715239/pdf/ajhg00127-0068.pdf
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 The Authors & LUMEN Publishing House
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs