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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The unfairness objection does not identify anything distinctive about genetic enhancement compared to other parental enhancement methods.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The unfairness objection is also applicable to other ways parents attempt to enhance their children, such as private schooling.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is not clear why genetic enhancement is more troubling than private schooling or other non-genetic enhancements.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawlsian fair equality of opportunity applies equally to advantages conferred by genetic selection and by socioeconomic investments like private schooling.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Norman Daniels's extension of Rawls to health shows that what matters morally is the magnitude of competitive advantage conferred, not the biological or social mechanism producing it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If we tolerate profound inequalities from private tutoring without special moral censure, consistency requires the same evaluative framework for genetic enhancements of comparable effect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Allen Buchanan et al. in 'From Chance to Choice' argue that the natural/artificial distinction carries no independent moral weight when assessing distributive fairness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The relevant moral variable in enhancement ethics is the degree to which an advantage widens opportunity gaps between children, not whether its substrate is genomic or environmental.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since private schooling already produces heritable socioeconomic advantages across generations, singling out genetic enhancement as distinctively unfair commits a category error by privileging substrate over outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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