Abstract
It may appear that there are grounds for an alliance between opponents of enhancement and disability advocates. People from both camps condemn parents who aspire to improve the physical and psychological traits their children would otherwise be born with, a condemnation often expressed as an accusation of eugenics. Despite these superficial appearances, the author will argue that disability advocates have nothing to applaud in Michael Sandel’s critique of enhancement, which is based on false and sometimes pernicious claims about the value of ‘normal’ human beings. However, they will also argue that disability advocates fail to provide convincing reasons for condemning parental decisions to avoid or eliminate certain traits their children would otherwise be born with. Contrary to what disability advocates and opponents of enhancement suggest, it is often a violation rather than an instantiation of parental virtue to abandon judgements about whether one’s children’s biological givens should be changed.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | The Ethics of Human Enhancement: |
Subtitle of host publication | Understanding the Debate |
Editors | Steve Clarke, Julian Savulescu, C. A. J. Coady, Alberto Giubilini, Sagar Sanyal |
Place of Publication | Oxford UK |
Publisher | Oxford University Press |
Pages | 75-86 |
Number of pages | 12 |
Edition | 1st |
ISBN (Print) | 9780198754855 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2016 |
Keywords
- enhancement
- Michael Sandel
- ‘normal’ human beings
- Social Model of Disability
- disability advocates