CAS PH 251 Lecture Notes - Lecture 19: Julian Savulescu, Nonperson, Counterargument
2 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Procreative Beneficence:
Gene Selecting
• Done to avoid serious diseases, look at gene profiles and selection of positive traits
• There are no technical problems with this process thus far
• Question: What are the moral obligations surrounding this process?
Arguments Raised by Savulescu
• 1. Some genes (both disease and non-disease genes) affect the likelihood of us leading
the best life
• 2. We have a reason to use information which is available about such genes in our
reproductive decision-making
• 3. Couples should and have an obligation to select embryos/fetuses which are most likely
to have the best life, based on available genetic information, including information about
non-disease genes (ex: genes that are probabilistically associated with intelligence)
o Obligation = Strong Reasons
▪ This is NOT driven by moral reasons
Principle of Procreative Beneficence
• The belief that couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible
children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as
the others, based on the relevant and available information
o Essentially, you should bear the child that has the best possible chance at life,
after considering the well-being of all your children
o Savulescu includes genetic information (about disease/non-disease traits) in the
realm of available information
▪ The impact of negative genes (ex: disease-related genes) could reduce the
quality of life (ex: affect what an individual can do, how they can do
things, reduce life span)
▪ The impact of positive genes (ex: intelligence genes) could improve the
quality of life (ex: make it easier for an individual to pursue a certain
career/life path
• Question: Why does Savulescu say that persuasion but not coercion is justified here?
o We as a society should not force people to live up to a certain obligation,
however, we should do our best to persuade them
o There is a general problem when persuasion borders on coercion but there is a
certain responsibility of doctors to implement the practice of persuasion
o Strong persuasion, not coercion, is justified
▪ There is no harm done to anyone because there is no non-identity problem
and thus, there is a procreative beneficence (non-person affecting
beneficence) for everyone
Procreative Beneficence Cases
• Case 1: Two Embryos
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
o Involves taking one cell from each embryo to determine positive/negative traits,
resulting in embryo A showing no abnormalities while embryo B has a genetic
predisposition to asthma
o Possible Options: you should choose embryo A, you may choose embryo A, you
should not choose embryo B, it is morally wrong to choose embryo A
▪ Savulescu’s View – to choose embryo A over embryo B, because embryo
A has the best chances to live the best life
• Thus, you are morally obligated to choose embryo A over embryo
B
▪ Utilitarian View – the expected utility is higher than the actual utility
• There is a possibility that embryo B could have been of extremely
valuable social value
• Thus, this raises the argument of why you should not genetically
screen
• Case 2: Timing Conception (with negative and positive traits)
o If you wait a few weeks, your child may have negative (ex: polio) or positive (ex:
intelligence) traits
▪ If positive traits have nothing to do with one’s quality of life, then the
argument for positive selection is dismissed
• ex: place a marshmallow in front of a child, ask them to wait for 5
minutes (if successful, they get 3 more marshmallows, if
unsuccessful, they only get the one they ate)
o If someone has a predisposition to give something up for
bigger gains in the future, this can help them realize
broader life plans/goals whereas if someone has a
predisposition to be impulsive, this can hinder them
Liberal Justification for Positive Trait Selection
• Question: Does ‘x’ trait contribute to wellbeing?
• Various accounts of wellbeing:
o Hedonistic Accounts – questions which life has the most pleasure (very
utilitarian)
o Desire-Fulfillment accounts – desires which are frustrated cannot be fulfilled
▪ Essentially, if you want to do certain things but cannot fulfill them, your
wellbeing is compromised
o Objective Accounts – there are certain things that constitute for a good human
life, regardless of individual desires
▪ This solely considers our obligation to produce a child with traits that
make for a good life
Objections to Positive Trait Selection
• 1. Potential harms to the child (ex: overbearing/controlling nature can lead to non-
positive selection)
o Counterargument: it is hard to differentiate between picking traits for a child and
pushing them to excel in a certain hobby when they grow up
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Some genes (both disease and non-disease genes) affect the likelihood of us leading the best life: 2. We have a reason to use information which is available about such genes in our reproductive decision-making: 3. A has the best chances to live the best life: thus, you are morally obligated to choose embryo a over embryo. The concept of eugenics eugenics is simply selection of traits: counterargument: you cannot say eugenics is immoral so inherently, positive selection of traits cannot be immoral, 5. It is better to embrace humility in the face of nature. Essentially, how do you draw the line between biomedical intervention and enhancement: sandel"s response intervention is acceptable in these cases because we are helping natural talents/abilities flourish and/or meet their predetermined end stake. Individuals have natural talents and predispositions, so when they are met with cases of disease, it is acceptable to intervene because these so called.
