Abstract
This paper utilizes Iris Marion Young’s critical, post-9/11 reading of Thomas Hobbes, “as a theorist of authoritarian government grounded in fear of threat” (Young 2003). Applying Young’s reading of Hobbes to the high-profile ethicist Julian Savulescu’s advocacy of genetic enhancement reveals an underlying unjust discrimination in Savulescu’s use of patriarchal protector–protected analogies between family and state. First, the paper shows how Savulescu’s concept of procreative beneficence, in which parents use genetic selection to have children who will have the “best lives” possible, is unjustly discriminatory against marginalized groups. Increasingly, however, he has invoked public security to justify genetic interventions. In recent speeches, Savulescu has argued a global state of emergency is developing due to a combination of the global environmental crisis, the threat of bioterrorism, and the failure of liberalism. To help deal with this emerging state of emergency, Savulescu advocates an unjustly discriminatory array of genetic-based governance practices, including detention and segregation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Sleeboom-Faulkner argues that in Savulescu’s laissez-faire view: “a skewed sex ratio in a population is not a bad thing [which] is based on the assumption that society can be viewed as a system in which an increase of influence of the rarer sex will return society to its original point of systems equilibrium” (Sleeboom-Faulkner 2010, 142–3). However, Sleeboom-Faulkner notes that there is no evidence to support this view and plenty of evidence contradicting it, including the continuing massive gender imbalances caused by the influence of cultural and economic norms that underwrite sex selection of boys over girls in China and India (Sleeboom-Faulkner 2010, 142–3).
Savulescu (2005) does not mention rape or murder.
As well, since bioweapons might be manufactured anywhere, they become a justification for pre-emptive strikes and foreign wars like the United States’ invasion of Iraq.
As well, this conflation fails to consider the political and other related motivations of terrorists, instead implying that terrorism is somehow genetic.
This 2006 conference presentation was sharply criticized for poor methodology, small sample size of 17, and failing to consider the racist implications of its findings (Merriman and Cameron 2007).
References
Agamben, G. 1998. Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Arrighi, G. 1994. The long twentieth century: Money, power, and the origins of our times. London: Verso.
Brunner, H.G., M.R. Nelen, X.O. Breakefield, H.H. Ropers, and B.A. van Oost. 1993. Abnormal behaviour associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science 262(5133): 578–580.
Bureau of Justice. 1998. More than a quarter million prison and jail inmates are identified as mentally ill. Bureau of Justice Statistics: U.S. Department of Justice. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/MHTIP.PR. Accessed April 29, 2010.
Caspi, A., J. McClay, T.E. Moffitt, M.J. Mill, I.W. Craig, A. Taylor, and R. Poulton. 2002. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in children. Science 297(5582): 851–854.
Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage Publications.
Dean, M. 2007. Governing societies: Political perspectives on domestic and international rule. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Federman, C., D. Holmes, and J.D. Jacob. 2009. Deconstructing the psychopath: A critical discursive analysis. Cultural Critique 72: 36–65. http://130.102.44.247/journals/cultural_critique/v072/72.federman.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2010.
Halpern, C. 2002. Suffering, politics, power: A genealogy in modern political theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Harvey, D. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T. 1651. Leviathan or the matter, forme and power of a common wealth ecclesiasticall and civil. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html. Accessed April 11, 2010.
Human Rights Watch. 2006. U.S.: Number of mentally ill in prisons quadrupled: Prisons ill equipped to cope. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/09/05/us-number-mentally-ill-prisons-quadrupled. Accessed April 29, 2010.
James, D.J., and L.E. Glaze. 2006. Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2010.
Kane, S., and P. Greenhill. 2007. A feminist perspective on bioterror: From anthrax to critical art ensemble. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 33(1): 53–80. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/518261. Accessed April 14, 2010.
Kimmel, M. 1993. Invisible masculinity. Society 30(6): 28–35.
Klapeer, C. 2008. Are liberal and market-based citizenship attires suited for lesbian feminist bodies? And: Is there a need for new outfits? Paper presented at the Cortona colloquium 2008: Gender and citizenship: New and old dilemmas, between equality and difference, 7–9 November 2008, in Cortona, Italy. http://www.fondazionefeltrinelli.it/dm_0/FF/FeltrinelliCmsPortale/0384.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2010.
McKinnon, S. 2005. Neo-liberal genetics: The myths and moral tales of evolutionary psychology. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Merriman,T., and V. Cameron. 2007. Risk-taking: Behind the warrior gene story. New Zealand Medical Journal 120(1250). http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/120-1250/2440/content.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2008.
Mills, C. 2007. Biopolitics, liberal eugenics and nihilism. In Sovereignty and life: On the work of Agamben, ed. M. Calarco and S. DeCaroli, 180–202. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Persson, I., and J. Savulescu. 2008. The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 25(3): 162–177. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2008.00410.x/pdf. Accessed April 2, 2010.
Richardson, R.C. 2007. Evolutionary psychology as maladapted psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Savulescu, J. 2001a. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15(5–6): 413–426. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8519.00251/pdf. Accessed April 2, 2010.
Savulescu, J. 2001b. Why genetic testing for genes for criminality is morally required. Princeton Journal of Bioethics 4: 79–97.
Savulescu, J. 2005. New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10(Suppl. 1): 36–39. http://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483(10)62202-X/pdf. Accessed April 3, 2010.
Savulescu, J. 2007. Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. In The Oxford handbook of bioethics, ed. B. Steinbock, 516–535. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Savulescu, J. 2009a. Abstract for lecture entitled unfit for life: Genetically enhance humanity or face extinction. Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/Events/Events%20History/eventshistory.htm. Accessed April 25, 2010.
Savulescu, J. 2009b. Unfit for life: Genetically enhance humanity or face extinction. Lecture presented at the Festival for Dangerous Ideas, October 4, 2009, in Sydney, Australia and shown on Slow TV. http://www.themonthly.com.au/genetically-enhance-humanity-or-face-extinction-julian-savulescu-2065. Accessed February 16, 2010.
Savulescu, J. 2010. Unfit For life: Genetically enhance humanity or face extinction. Lecture presented for the St Cross Ethics Seminar Series, February 22, 2010, at St Cross College, Oxford. http://media.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/uehiro/genetic_enhancement_or_extinction.mp4. Accessed August 12, 2010.
Savulescu, J., and J. Harris. 2004. The creation lottery: Final lessons from natural reproduction: Why those who accept natural reproduction should accept cloning and other Frankenstein reproductive technologies. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13(1): 90–96.
Savulescu, J., and N. Tonti-Filippini. 2004. Should we be allowed to choose the sex of babies? Sunday Herald Sun, February 1. Factiva Database Document: SUHERS0020040131e0210003m. Accessed April 25, 2010.
Shaw, K. 2008. Indigeneity and political theory: Sovereignty and the limits of the political. London: Routledge.
Sleeboom-Faulkner, M. 2010. Reproductive technologies and the quality of offspring in Asia: Reproductive pioneering and moral pragmatism? Culture, Health & Sexuality 12(2): 139–152.
Sparrow, R. 2007. Procreative beneficence, obligation, and eugenics. Genomics, Society, and Policy 3(3): 43–59.
Young, I.M. 2003. Feminist reactions to the contemporary security regime. Hypatia 18(1): 223–231.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Francoise Baylis, Tim Krahn, Simon Outram, and the two anonymous reviewers for their comments.
Funding source and author declaration
Research for this paper was funded under a Canadian Institute of Health Research grant 950-202186 entitled “Justice for All.” This grant involves research into the intergenerational justice implications of genetic technologies. Within these general parameters, however, I am solely responsible for the specific content and subject of this paper. I declare that I have no competing or conflicting interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Munsterhjelm, M. “Unfit for Life”: A Case Study of Protector-Protected Analogies in Recent Advocacy of Eugenics and Coercive Genetic Discrimination. Bioethical Inquiry 8, 177–189 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-011-9290-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-011-9290-6