Genetic Engineering

Do Parents Have A Moral Obligation to Genetically Upgrade Their Kids?

|

A snip here and snip there, your kid's a wimp.

Oxford University bioethicist Julian Savulescu argues that "responsible parenting" means that kids should be bioengineered to behave in "ethical" ways. From the Telegraph:

[Savulescu] said that science is increasingly discovering that genes have a significant influence on personality – with certain genetic markers in embryo suggesting future characteristics.

By screening in and screening out certain genes in the embryos, it should be possible to influence how a child turns out.

In the end, he said that "rational design" would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future.

"Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?" wrote Prof Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor in practical ethics.

"So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice.

"To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.

"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.

"They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others."

"If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring — rather than consigning them to the natural lottery — then we should."

Savulescu's vision strongly depends on the notion that genetic traits come in nice little packages that can be added or excised at will. However, behavioral "traits" are likely to have two (or more) sides to them, e.g., bravery could well be associated with aggressive tendencies, or prudence with selfishness, righteousness with implacability, etc. Can't bioengineer away the bad without also affecting the good. What about eugenics concerns?

[Savulescu] said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favour when it was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children.

Voluntary? The idea that genetically engineering your children to behave more ethically is a "moral obligation" seems to me to imply the possibility of state intervention down the line.

In any case, the future importance of genetic engineering is being way overblown—biopharmaceutical interventions is where the real action will be. As I argued in my column, "Down with Gene Tyranny!":

Underlying all this moral handwringing over genetic engineering is the concern that genes really matter—that one's life chances are largely determined by the genes one carries. Good genes equal a bright future; bad genes entail a blighted future. Recent genetic research is showing that this view is wrong. How so? By using outside interventions that regulate and enhance the performance of the genes that people already have. Such interventions will include new, precisely targeted pharmaceuticals that will change the activity of various genes and gene combinations in desired ways…

Genetically engineered inequality is a bioethical phantom. The truth is that biotechnological interventions will eventually enable nearly everyone to enhance their bodies and their brains. The good news is that as researchers learn more about the good and bad effects of our genes, the more we will be liberated from whatever tyranny they do exercise.

Basically, parents won't have to genetically engineer their kids because when their kids become adults they will be able to enhance themselves by taking advantage of a wide array of biotechnological interventions to tweak whatever genes their parents' haplessly bequeathed them.

NEXT: Wozniak Fears Internet Regulation

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think we need to be careful of this. I mean, look at what it did to the crew of the Botany Bay.

    1. It worked out okay for Dr. Bashir.

      1. Not so great for the other people who were genetically engineered though.

      2. Seems like he struggled with it alot in the series.

        1. Mostly due to (surprise) the government making it illegal.

          1. there were flshbacks i think to his childhood about having a hard time realting with his parents and blaming them. part of that probably has to do with the illegalness, but also because they made choices for him that seemed to violate his individuality

            or maybe i read too much into it.

            1. I think he would still have had some issues besides the legality, but most of them were because of that.

              The ones that weren’t were either because:

              1) No one else is enhanced so he’s literally like a superhero compared to everyone else.

              2) His parents did the genetic engineering after he was born, because he wasn’t “good enough”. I don’t think this would have been an issue if they did it before he was born because then he wouldn’t feel like they disliked the “real” him.

    2. We offered the world ORDER!

      1. We? I already used that this morning, dipshit.

    3. You lie! On Seti Alpha five there was life. A fair chance.

      1. THIS IS SETI ALPHA FIVE!!!

      2. THIS IS CETI ALPHA FIVE!!!!!!

    4. You are in a position to demand *nothing*. I, on the other hand, am in a position to *grant* nothing.

  2. but its ok to design the gay away right?

    1. Just think if urine’s parents had engineered him to have a brain.

      1. Or just decided to abort the whole mess and try again.

        1. I suspect they may have tried just that, and he is the product of a botched abortion attempt.

          1. This explains much which was heretofore unexplained.

            1. but what about the gay?

              1. There won’t be any need for gaiety in this wonderful dystopia.

              2. I think it was a staple of LGBT boosters that teh ghey can’t be a choice insofar as no one could possibly want to be gay. So I would imagine gays being thrilled that teh ghey could be designed away.

          2. I thought it was fetal alcohol syndrome.

          3. Pity that the failed abortion didn’t happen at a clinic in Philly with a history of great follow-through.

            1. Isn’t that where you and Michelle had your first abortion? There should be a plaque.

            2. Shouldn’t you be out campaigning, or playing golf or something?

  3. Absolutely nothing could possibly go wrong with this so state control of the technology is perfectly fine.

  4. Queue sci-fi references…now.

    Best movie on the subject, easily Gattaca. As I recall the mission director told the detectives something like “check my genes, I don’t have a violent bone in my body”, and of course ended up being the killer.

    I seriously doubt it will be possible to fully remove violent impulses without leaving people near vegetative.

    1. doubt it will be possible to fully remove violent impulses without leaving people near vegetative

      Or more violent, a la Serenity. Although, IIRC, that was drugs, not genetics.

      1. Given what we know about gene triggers there might not be much of a difference.

        The P49 Paxalon Hydrochlorate may simply have been a genetic trigger designed to activate some gene sequence that promoted tranqility and suppressed aggression.

    2. Unlike 99.9% of libertarians, I generally hate sci-fi, but I really liked Gattaca.

      1. Re: ClubMedSux,

        Unlike 99.9% of libertarians, I generally hate sci-fi, but I really liked Gattaca.

        Well, I confess I like Sci-Fi, but I do hate 100% of all Sci-Fi that contains gross ignorance of economics. You know, like 99% of all Sci-Fi.

        Which is why I love this story:

        And Then There Were None – Eric Frank Russell

      2. I think we can invoke the No True Scotsman rule for not liking sci-fi, can’t we?

        1. Can I get some kind of dispensation for being a huge Mystery Science Theater 3000 fan? I mean, that’s kinda sci-fi, right?

          1. Liking MST3K makes you a comedy fan, not a sci-fi fan.

            1. It definitely makes you a nerd, either way.

          2. Someone should do that except with news shows not movies.

    3. Self-interest, a desire to reproduce, and violence in the furtherance of those interests are rooted at the heart of the species — I’m dubious of claims that we can root out such a base impulse through the power of genetic engineering without damaging a core component of what makes us human, or even a dominant, sentient species.

    4. Removing violent impulses only gets rid of impulsive violence.

  5. I bet an engineered slave would get top dollar at the auctions.

    1. Re; Drake,

      I bet an engineered slave would get top dollar at the auctions.

      Especially if the slave is sensuous, curvilicious… and green!!

      1. Those were the hottest orion slave women.

  6. I think I’ll stick with my cybernetic implants, thank you very much.

    1. I prefer the Collar of Discipline.

  7. “I have to be quick! About a tenth of a percent of the population had the opposite reaction to the Pax. Their aggressor response increased beyond madness. They have become…”
    [sobs]
    “Well, they’ve killed most of us. And not just killed… they’ve done things…”

    1. But that was a gas, sarcasmic. We’re talking about genes. Genes – you know, to become Augments.

  8. Do Parents Have A Moral Obligation to Genetically Upgrade Their Kids?

    Yes. Next question, please?

    Ok, think about it: What is the purpose of having kids? To propagate your genes, your legacy. How do you improve the chances of your progeny to survive and thrive? You nurture your progeny; you provide him or her with tools and knowledge that will help him or her be competitive. You will certainly not want to give the child a substandard education, low quality knowledge or a hobbled intellect, you want him or her to improve on what you built.

    So why not upgrade his or her genes? It is the logical progression.

    1. given that there are infinite possibilities to the effects of modifying genes (its not simply a light switch effect), one has to understand there are many risks to playing with a genome. Its not a Yes/No question, because just because you make someone “placid” normally does not also mean they might have a tendency for “schizophrenia”.

    2. There is no such thing as an upgrade, because as I said down-thread, certain phenotypes are only advantageous or disadvantageous given specific contexts. Not to mention that non-genomic heritable information plays a large role in the expression of the genome, and could potentially abrogate or turn on its head the intended effect of a modification.

      1. so what i said, but sceintificky

    3. “So why not upgrade his or her genes? It is the logical progression.”

      That’s all fine and dandy, so long as the parents define what “upgrade” means. My feeling is the guy in this article wants to define it for you.

  9. I presume this at least allows us to get rid of saggy boobs. Perky nubile boobies for life! That might make all the rest of the ugliness this would produce worthwhile.

    1. I like where you’re going with this.

      1. His bunk?

    2. Re: Restoras,

      I presume this at least allows us to get rid of saggy boobs. Perky nubile boobies for life!

      You mean man-boobs?

      1. You mean man-boobs?

        We like to call them ‘Schumers’.

      2. You asshole, you just ruined my weekend.

  10. Goddamn Romanians… Why doesn’t he stick to genetically engineering the perfect gymnast and leave the hypocritical moralizing to us Americans?

    1. because geneticly diverse USA still kicked his ass.

    2. A tactic worthy of a Romanian.

  11. Gene Tranny was a popular actor from several specialized adult films back in the 90’s. Or so I’m told.

  12. Interesting, no, that he simply cannot stop talking about obligations (moral, legal, I wonder if he cares about the difference).

    Even when he says “we should allow parents that choice”, it doesn’t seem to be coming from “The State should have no authority over this one way or the other”, but more from “Of course the State has to control this, and this is how it should be controlled.”

    And lets not kid ourselves: once the State is in charge, the State will be ordering the engineering of subjects for the State’s benefit.

    1. And lets not kid ourselves: once the State is in charge, the State will be ordering the engineering of subjects for the State’s benefit.

      Oh, really? Well, they run the schools, and they don’t educate kids for the State’s bene..oh, wait…

    2. Right. So, the majority of the population would be engineered to be docile and productive (helots), a small portion would be engineered to “protect” the docile portion (spartans) but at the same time rigidly obey the orders of the smallest portion (Tony and his ilk of uber-control freak douchebags) that oversees and directs everything, all for the benefit of the society as a whole, of course.

      1. More like Alphas, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons, ala Brave New World.

      2. Interesting to see if it is even possible to one-up the diversity of naturally evolved populations. Sure, there might be a few things, but there is really no such thing as a “good” or “bad” gene or phenotype. It is all context-dependent. Engineering the “right” kind of human might abolish the activity of some other component that is necessary to survival as a social species.

        1. For the bioethicist that is a feature, not a bug.

        2. of course it is, but given the scientific method, you’re going to have alot of throaways before you get something consistantly good. are people lab rats?

    3. a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society

      What do you bet if it benefits society but provides little or no individual benefit, he’d still be fine with it? Likewise, if it benefited the individual but didn’t do squat for scoiety, do you think he’d like that?

      1. its good for thee, not for me!

        1. That quote, it’s so familiar… it’s like I’ve seen it here before…

          …must have been a dream or something.

  13. Watching the Little League World Series. Team Canada just blew a 7 run lead against Mexico. If they lose I believe the penalty is forced labor in the wheat fields of Saskatchawan, correct?

    1. Mining gold in the Yukon.

      1. Chained to a donut fryer at Tim Horton’s.

        1. Eternal servitude in the poutine factories of Winnipeg.

        2. Hell, I’d lose a game for that!

    2. Oil fields in Alberta.

  14. Again with the genetic engineering to produce better traits, with absolutely no clue as to how that would even work (the moral issue is obviously a separate one, but if it’s not even possible, then why even have that debate?). The second-most annoying thing about bioethicists to me is this- they often talk about what we “should” do with futuristic knowledge and technologies, even though they are not only not the inventors of said technology, but probably only know about it from reading Popular Science.

    The most annoying thing, of course, is their absolute hatred of individualism.

    1. Can you imagine the commercials for a gene therapy that give one the vision of a falcon?

      May cause feather-like growths on the skin, Tourette-like screeching and an uncontrolable craving for raw meadow voles.

      1. That sounds like an awesome drug. Does it wear off?

    2. But ants are so much more efficient than our irrational, unpredictable individualism!

  15. “responsible parenting” means that kids should be bioengineered to behave in “ethical” ways.

    And why not? What better way to usher in our Brave New World?

    1. So in California, can I engineer a son without a foreskin?

      1. So that’s what you find attractive in Michelle?

  16. I’ve never seen the word ‘bioethicist’ and something I agree with used in the same sentence. Replace it with ‘Thanatos Cultist’ and the meaning doesn’t change.

  17. Slightly off topic: Dolphin dry humps tourist!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..urist.html

    1. He smelled fish. Speaking of which, I wish my parents had engineered me to have webbed feet so I good kick Michael Phellps ass.

    2. My wife was a Marine Biology Major at UT Galviston when she was in school and part of her studies was to work in the dolphin rehab tanks (for Dolphins who had been found injured in some way, usually after a run in with a boat or propeller) and apparently one of her charges was quite fond of her in just this way, constantly swimming around the tank with his junk extended and hooking it between her legs and dragging her around the pool with it.

      It is apparently not that uncommon for dolphins who spend a lot of time in proximity with humans to try and have sex with them.

  18. “It will be voluntary”. The hell? I don’t see anywhere a way to ask the child if they want to be engineered into a compliant beast of burden.

    1. Engineer the kid first, then when it grows up, ask if it wants to be a socially disruptive individual.

    2. “I don’t see anywhere a way to ask the child”

      Does the planned child have any more right to a choice than a fetus?

    3. But there is never any child except the compliant beast of burden in that case. No child gets to choose whether they want to be whatever their parents genes will make them either. Or to be a superman if we ever figure out how to do that. Beings that don’t exist can’t make choices.

    4. I’m engineering a master race, you can engineer the beast of burden….i see this getting messy.

    5. I don’t see any way to ask a child if they want to be born at all, so until you are prepared to outlaw reproduction, I don’t see how this is a valid criticism.

  19. Very OT: I rarely eat candy bars, but I’m very much enjoying a Zero at the moment. Does that make me racist?

    Also, what is the best mass-produced candy bar out there?

    1. Zero is my favorite. I thought I was the only one.

      1. Never heard of it.

          1. Looks pretty good.

      2. I thought I was the only one

        Zero was my favorite as a child in the early 60’s. I, too, thought I was the only one.

        The things one learns on HampersandR.

        … Hobbit

    2. I’ve never even heard of Zero. You sir, are a dirty red.

      1. How the fuck have neither of you ever heard of a Zero bar?

        Sarcasmic, I don’t get it. At least Jimbo has an Asian wife that probably forces him to eat fish-flavored candy bars and other bizarre shit.

        1. Maybe it’s because we’re not filthy racists that go out of our way to find candy bars that are white on the outside. I’ve never seen them before either.

        2. I don’t like all that fish-flavored crap. She eats shrimp-flavor chips constantly, and eats milk-flavor candy. It’s disgusting and morally wrong.

          1. You mean you haven’t beaten the bad habits out of her yet? I thought you were from Texas.

          2. I remember buying a random bag of gummy candy in Chinatown when I was a kid and thinking “what the fuck flavor is this?”

            1. If I had to guess off the top of my head, I would go with, 1) shrimp, 2) red bean, or 3) milk.

              They can’t get enough of that shit.

              And we only beat up on queers and retards in Texas, Sparky, not the wives.

              1. I had some Chinese gummies in peanut and corn flavor.

              2. I’m trying to wrap my mind around milk flavored candy.

                1. It’s seriously gross as hell.

                  1. Are we talking “White Rabbit”-like substances?

              3. If you want wife beaters, go to Arkansas.

                1. They’re called dago tees

    3. Mars bar. Though it’s too small.

    4. I’m going to go with Zagnut.

    5. Does that make me racist?

      Duh. The fact that you can’t even eat a brown piece of candy says volumes.

      1. Banjos doesn’t like the Zero either. It’s the first time she had one and she said something about the white one not being as good as the long, brown things she is used to putting in her mouth.

        Should I be worried?

        1. Coprophagis is an increasingly accepted fetish in today’s society. Be loud and proud!

          1. *coprophagia

            1. Coprophagis is the eating of pooped-out haggis.

              1. Even better. We can take this to the next level. Human Centipede III: The Highlanders

                1. There can be only three!

        2. Nah, she made her choice. Besides, oral sex isn’t cheating so don’t worry if she keeps putting the big brown ones in her mouth.

          1. Now she tells me a Zero is lousy compared to a Mounds.

            I’m fucked.

            1. She’s the racist. Mounds is basically the candy equivalent of blackface.

              1. Coconut and chocolate. Mounds is the candy equivalent of getting it on with a Samoan.

                1. Meh, if you’d have said Almond Joy, I would have laughed. As it stands, you ruined RBS’s joke.

                  Thanks a lot, asshole.

                  1. What does almonds have to do with Samoa? You’re the asshole, asshole. Eating you asshole Zero bar with your asshole, probably.

                    1. Says the man that probably thinks the Charleston Chew is a delicious treat.

                      Wait a minute. Why am I discussing the merits of a Mounds bar with someone whose body considers them poison to begin with?

                    2. I am the perfect judge of candy bars. I must be selective. I can’t go around shoving any old candy in my mouth. Unlike you, Sugarwhore.

      2. this video right here because it’s apt.”What reason commentator’s favorite song about candy is this.

        I know this is gratuitous trolling.

        1. Haw-Haw! You me’d it!

        2. SF’ed the link

    6. Heath Bar. Though I wish they’d make it with dark chocolate.

      1. Raaaaaaaac-

        -oh, wait. That one’s ok.

      2. No question, if we’re talking candy bars.

        Now, if you’re talking candy more generally (and leaving out the artisanal chocolates), I would have to say either Dove or Cadbury is the way to go.

        1. Cadbury Creme Eggs are the best and surest way to go immediately into a sugar trance.

        2. I like the Skor better than the Heath. The toffee is slightly aerated so it’s isn’t as dense. (Of course, density may be the desired quality.)

          1. I agree on the Skor.

            And Cadbury chocolate tastes funny. I like it, but it has a weird, sour milk thing going on.

            A funny thing I learned about Hershey chocolate: apparently the distinctive taste they have is because all of the cocoa butter is rancid. Saved a step in processing or something.

          2. Well, I have a long drive tomorrow on our way to vacation in Cape Ann, MA so I will try both!

        3. In chocolate, Girardelli makes some excellent mass produced dark chocolate, including some tasty “artisinal” (I really hate how the hipsters have ruined that word) varieties. Scharffen Berger is my favorite when I can find it.

          Agree on the Cadbury Creme Egg assessment. I can usuall have one and then don’t need sugar for a week.

        1. You are awesome.

        2. You. You are teh awesome.

    7. I’m sure I’m an outlier on this one, but I have to go with 3 Musketeers.

      1. Sorry, Fatty, but the shit-eating subthread is up just a bit.

    8. I think they are terrible, tasting like whipped pennies. But to each his own.

      The Mars Bar is high on my list. As are the retro-delights of the Oh Henry.

      1. I worked for a congressman who gave Oh Henry bars to everyone. You can probably guess his first name.

        1. Rupert?

        2. Did he resemble a mole?

          Please tell me you didn’t work for Henry fucking Waxman. If so, you’re brain dead to me. Not dead, but Schiavo’d.

          1. No, good lord. Mine is from the South.

      2. Baby Ruth for me, at least for mass produced candy bars.

        Does that make me gay, or a pedophile?

    9. My personal favorite when I can find it is made by Cadbury and generally only available in England called a Picnic Bar. I used to get them all the time at Jungle Jims in Cincy (god I miss that place) but they are very hard to find anywhere else.

      As far as the ones generally available here in the States, The Samoa and Thin Mint flavored Nestle Crunch bars are really good but I think I’m gonna call some version of the Take 5 bar my favorite.

  20. So basically he wants kids to be like Labrador Retrievers, sweet and compliant, but likely suffering from hip dysplasia.

    1. Our last lab had hip issues at 6. It was sad enough that I am rethinking getting a lab for my (one day) kids.

      1. is there a big active dog out there that doesn’t suffer from hip displasia. I thought that was a result of breeding big dogs rather than any specific trait of a lab’s.

        1. Tibetan Mastiffs are expensive, but healthy.

          1. how much sprinting around do they do?

            1. Eh, moderate. They aren’t jogging companions, but they also aren’t couch potatos like an english mastiff. They were bred for patrol, and due to the environment, had to be able to navigate up and down mountainsides.

              Mine is still going crazy running in circles and shit, but she’s only 8 months old.

              1. All that exercise is gonna help her taste even better for the in-laws when they show up for Thanksgiving though.

                1. Hilariously my mother-in-law is terrified of dogs, and so never comes to our house.

                  For all you unmarried chaps out there, I cannot recommend enough having in-laws that, 1) don’t speak your language, and 2) are terrified of something you keep around the house.

                  1. I’m good to go there. My in-laws are terrified of my wife so they stay in Phoenix.

                  2. Lucky. Bastard.

        2. American Staffordshire Terriers.

          If those are a little much for you, try the English version.

          1. I have an English pointer and pit bull mix, he’s the perfect dog. Super athletic, super patient, great with kids, cats and little dogs, hikes 14ers with me and carries his own backpack, big enough to do damage but small enough to fit in any car, and beautiful. He’s almost 6 and perfectly healthy so far.

  21. I guess the question is, would central planning in genetics turn out to be as inferior in practice (even leaving aside moral considerations) as its economic counterpart? A case could be made but I’m not so sure.

    Natural selection is as un-centrally planned as it gets, but it’s also gorram slow.

  22. Call me crazy, but my visceral response to anybody who claims parents have a “moral obligation” to behave as they (the moralizing interlopers) deem most fit is

    Fuck off, Slaver.

  23. Define “ethically better children”.

    “Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism conservatism, psychopathy individualism and disposition to violence question authority, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children.

    And of course, you could easily insert whatever “undesirable” qualities you want to suppress. As Malcolm Reynolds would say:

    “Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. … A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better.”

    1. If one can screen out ethical shortcomings, that why can’t we execute bad kids?

      1. Engineer those genes right out of existence!

      2. Because that’s barbaric.

  24. Actually, I think this is a fascinating idea. But not for the idea of genetically engineering desirable traits.

    It is fascinating as an approach to the issue of genetic engineering of humans that might normalize the concept for let’s say less libertarian people on the political spectrum. In a wierd way it’s like framing the concept of GE in a way that is more likely to appeal to liberals.

    Personally, I think that parents should certainly be free to “select” what they feel are desirable traits. The funny thing is that what is considered a desirable trait is going to vary so much. I can’t find it objectionable for one parent to wish to select against “violence” and “selfishness”, if I personally would select FOR intelligence and independence.

  25. Hugo Chavez Building Opulent Mausoleum For Simon Bolivar; Self

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a…..um_bolivar

    1. Like any great pharaoh, he should take all his most devoted servants to be buried with him.

  26. In the end, he said that “rational design” would help lead to a better, more intelligent and less violent society in the future.

    Probably not. The mix of genes in the population is the result of selection pressures acting over very long time frames. Some parents making their kids pacifistic will result in counteracting selection pressures for the unmodified populace to become on average more aggressive to bring things back into balance.

    1. Those selection pressures would still be at work, it’s just that through genetics we could bring consciousness and reason to the selection process (something that’s alread been happening for millenia, btw, such as when women consciously choose responsible, productive males as husbands over more physically attractive dimwits or losers).

  27. So I would imagine gays being thrilled that teh ghey could be designed away.

    The term I’ve heard gays use to describe that contingency is “the upcoming gay holocaust.” So, not so much with the thrilled.

  28. Remember, this is the guy running the journal that published a paper defending infanticide as morally equivalent to abortion (and while pro-lifers would agree, unlike the “bioethicist”, they consider it wrong). Nazi scum is what he is.

  29. The most glaring question left open by Savulescu’s position is “which ethics”? Jonathan Haidt has done excellent work examining the foundations of moral reasoning, and it’s clear from his work that there isn’t just one stable model of ethical intuition. (And to be clear, if there’s any genetic component of ethics, it’s undoubtedly the intuitive “moral sentiments” level at which it will work, so we’re not talking about gengineering our children in Kantians here.)

    So do we make our kids very sensitive to harm and fairness? Loyalty? Liberty? Does every parent get to pick what moral sentiments they want their children to share?

    On the flip side, if it really is a parent’s ethical obligation to do the best for their children, shouldn’t a non-zero number of parents want genetically induce sociopathy in their children? After all, there’s some reasonable (though anecdotal) evidence that the few sociopaths in society often do very well for themselves.

    Blatant self-link: I asked a question about this on my blog a few weeks ago: http://www.aaronmbrown.net/blo…..-question/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.