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
    Once the reasonableness condition is satisfied, parents s... — Carmelics
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Once the reasonableness condition is satisfied, parents should be permitted to choose among a wide range of 'all-purpose' traits according to their own preferences.

    BioethicsRights & Liberty
    ?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.All-purpose traits provide broad benefits that serve a child's interests across many life paths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parental autonomy is a legitimate value within the bounds of the child's reasonable interests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Habermas argues that genetic pre-selection imposes a one-sided communicative relationship that the child cannot contest or revise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Traits selected by parents encode parental expectations into the child's biology, undermining the open future Feinberg identifies as a core child's right.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A right to an open future is violated not only by restricting choices but by biologically instantiating preferences the child never endorsed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Elizabeth Anderson's expressivist argument holds that selecting 'all-purpose' traits treats children as products engineered to parental specification rather than as ends in themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even trait selection serving broad interests signals that children's worth is conditional on meeting standards external to their own self-authorship.
      ?

      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

    BioethicsRights & Liberty

    Related

    A right to an open future is violated not only by restricting choices but by bio...All-purpose traits provide broad benefits that serve a child's interests across ...Elizabeth Anderson's expressivist argument holds that selecting 'all-purpose' tr...Even trait selection serving broad interests signals that children's worth is co...
    +3 moreShow less
    Habermas argues that genetic pre-selection imposes a one-sided communicative rel...Parental autonomy is a legitimate value within the bounds of the child's reasona...Traits selected by parents encode parental expectations into the child's biology...

    Similar

    Parental judgment about a child's best interests must accord with the ...75%Restrictions on genetic trait selection limit parents' ability to act ...74%Prospective parents choosing traits that contribute to inequality may ...72%Increasing a child's real freedom is a permissible parental aim in rep...72%

    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