Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Genetic interventions should be aimed at what is reasonab... — Carmelics
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Genetic interventions should be aimed at what is reasonably in the child's best interests.

    Bioethics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Parental judgment about a child's best interests must accord with the judgment of most other informed members of society to count as reasonable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parental interests are relevant but not solely determinative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The 'best interests' standard presupposes a determinate future self whose interests can be known prior to the interventions that partly constitute that self.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parfit's work on personal identity shows that genetic interventions alter which person exists, making pre-intervention interest-attribution logically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A standard requiring benefit to a child who would not exist without the intervention cannot ground prohibitions on that intervention without collapsing into the non-identity problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Habermas argues in 'The Future of Human Nature' that prenatal genetic programming violates the child's right to an open future by constituting an asymmetric, irrevocable self-relation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A liberal ethics of the species requires that the child retain the capacity to revise the normative self-understanding imposed by parental genetic choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The 'best interests' framing obscures this autonomy violation by reducing a deontological wrong to a consequentialist welfare calculation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Bioethics

    Connections

    2 topics

    Social Contract1 linkedRights & Liberty1 linked

    Related

    A liberal ethics of the species requires that the child retain the capacity to r...A standard requiring benefit to a child who would not exist without the interven...Habermas argues in 'The Future of Human Nature' that prenatal genetic programmin...Parental interests are relevant but not solely determinative.
    +4 moreShow less
    Parental judgment about a child's best interests must accord with the judgment o...Parfit's work on personal identity shows that genetic interventions alter which ...The 'best interests' framing obscures this autonomy violation by reducing a deon...The 'best interests' standard presupposes a determinate future self whose intere...

    Similar

    Genetic interventions that narrow but do not eliminate a child's futur...80%Such interventions do not eliminate the child's ability to choose how ...78%Parental judgment about a child's best interests must accord with the ...78%Legal presumptions can be grounded in what typically serves children's...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: eugenics
    View source passageHide passage
    Constraints on parental reproductive decisions about what traits to choose can also be seen as conflicting with reproductive freedom and parental autonomy. For instance, Green (2007) rejects the “right to an open future” language in part because he thinks parents must be allowed to do things that are more for their own interests than for the sake of their children, even when doing so affects how the children develop. Following William Ruddick (2007), he thinks of parents as both guardians and ga
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit