Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 397–416 | Cite as

Should we select for genetic moral enhancement? A thought experiment using the MoralKinder (MK+) haplotype

  • Halley S. FaustEmail author


By using preimplantation haplotype diagnosis, prospective parents are able to select embryos to implant through in vitro fertilization. If we knew that the naturally-occurring (but theoretical) MoralKinder (MK+) haplotype would predispose individuals to a higher level of morality than average, is it permissible or obligatory to select for the MK+ haplotype? I.e., is it moral to select for morality? This paper explores the various potential issues that could arise from genetic moral enhancement.


Preimplantation genetic diagnosis Selection Morality Genetic aristocracy Liberal eugenics Enhancement 



Thanks to Miller Brown and other members of the Hartford Ethics Group and the Santa Fe Ethics Group and to the anonymous reviewers of this journal for their review and comments on an earlier draft of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Mill, John S. 1869. On liberty. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mangravite, L.M., C.F. Thorn, and R.M. Krauss. 2006. Clinical implications of pharmacogenomics of statin treatment. The Pharmacogenomics Journal 6: 360–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duffy, Michael J. 2005. Predictive markers in breast and other cancers: A review. Clinical Chemistry 51: 494–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greene, Joshua D., R. Brian Sommerville, Leigh E. Nystrom, John M. Darley, and Jonathan D. Cohen. 2001. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293: 2105–2108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borg, Jana S., Catherine Hynes, John Van Horn, et al. 2006. Consequences, action, and intention as factors in moral judgments: An fMRI investigation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 803–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Plomin, Robert, Michael J. Owen, and Peter McGuffin. 1994. The genetic basis of complex human behaviors. Science 264: 1733–1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCrae, Robert R., and Paul T. Costa. 1997. Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist 52: 509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCrae, Robert R., Kerry L. Jang, W.John Livesley, Rainer Riemann, and Alois Angleiter. 2001. Sources of structure: Genetic, environmental, and artifactual influences on the covariation of personality traits. Journal of Personality 69: 511–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Livesley, W. John, Kerry L. Jang, and Phillip A. Vernon. 1998. Phenotypic and genetic structure of traits delineating personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry 55: 941–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walker, Mark. 2003. Genetic virtue. Accessed Oct 4 2008.
  11. 11.
    de Waal, Frans. 1999. The end of nature versus nurture. Scientific American 281: 56–61.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singer, Tania, Ben Seymour, John P. O’Doherty, et al. 2006. Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature 439: 466–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plomin, Robert, and Kathryn Asbury. 2005. Nature and nurture: Genetic and environmental influences on behavior. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600: 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agar, Nicholas. 2004. Liberal eugenics: In defense of human enhancement. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Grazia, David. 2005. Human identity and bioethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fukuyama, Francis. 2002. Our posthuman future, consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Green, Ronald M. 2007. Babies by design: The ethics of genetic choice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Habermas, Jürgen. 2003. The future of human nature. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harris, Jonathan. 2007. Enhancing evolution: The ethical choice for making better people. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    McKibben, Bill. 2003. Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parens, Erik, ed. 1998. Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walters, Leroy, and Julie Gage Palmer. 1997. The ethics of human gene therapy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    President’s Council on Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Savulescu, Julian. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15: 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Savulescu, Julian. 2007. In defence of procreative beneficence. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 284–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Birch, Kean. 2005. Beneficence, determinism and justice: An engagement with the argument for the genetic selection of intelligence. Bioethics 19: 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parker, Michael. 2007. The best possible child. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gert, Bernard, Charles M. Culver, and K.Danner Clouser. 2006. Bioethics: A systematic approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singer, Peter. 1995. How are we to live? Ethics in an age of self-interest. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blackburn, Simon. 2003. Being good: A short introduction to ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cole-Turner, Ronald. 1998. Do means matter? In Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications, ed. Erik Parens, 151–161. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mealey, Linda. 1995. The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Brain and Behavior Science 18: 523–599. Commentaries in the BBS issue (1997) 20 (3): 525–532.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The view from nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Searle, John R. 2001. Rationality in action. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Juengst, Eric T. 1998. What does enhancement mean? In Enhancing human traits: Ethical and social implications, ed. Erik Parens, 29–47. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith, H.M. 1991. Varieties of moral worth and moral credit. Ethics 101 (1): 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rose, Geoffrey. 1985. Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology 14: 32–38.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Williams, Thomas N., Tabitha W. Mwangi, Sammy Wambua, Neal D. Alexander, et al. 2005. Sickle cell trait and the risk of Plasmodium falciparum malaria and other childhood diseases. Journal of Infectious Diseases 192: 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lindsay, Ronald A. 2005. Enhancements and justice: Problems in determining the requirements of justice in a genetically transformed society. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15: 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smilansky, Saul. 2006. Some thoughts on terrorism, moral complaint, and the self-reflexive and relational nature of morality. Philosophia 34: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fotion, Nick. 2006. Two theories of just war. Philosophia 34: 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sandel, Michael J. 2004. The case against perfection. Atlantic Monthly 293: 51–62.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kamm, Frances M. 2005. Is there a problem with enhancement? American Journal of Bioethics 5 (3): 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Horsey, Kirsty. 2008. Three million IVF babies born worldwide. Accessed 20 Oct 2008.
  45. 45.
    Faust, Halley S. 2009. Kindness, not compassion in health care. Cambridge Health Care Ethics Quarterly 18 (3) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Family and Community MedicineUniversity of New MexicoSanta FeUSA

Personalised recommendations