NanoEthics

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 43–48

Animal Disenhancement and the Non-Identity Problem: A Response to Thompson

Critical Discussion Notes

Abstract

In his paper “The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken problem” (Nanoethics 2:305–316, 2008) Paul Thompson argues that the possibility of “disenhancing” animals in order to improve animal welfare poses a philosophical conundrum. Although many people intuitively think such disenhancement would be morally impermissible, it’s difficult to find good arguments to support such intuitions. In this brief response to Thompson, I accept that there’s a conundrum here. But I argue that if we seriously consider whether creating beings can harm or benefit them, and introduce the non-identity problem to discussions of animal disehancement, the conundrum is even deeper than Thompson suggests.

Keywords

Paul Thompson Ethics Animals Livestock Animal rights Nanotechnology Biotechnology Non-identity problem 

References

  1. 1.
    Appleby MC (1999) What should we do about animal welfare? Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balzer P, Rippe KP, Schaber P (2000) Two concepts of dignity for humans and non-human organisms in the context of genetic engineering. J Agric Environ Ethics 13:7–27Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchanan A, Brock D, Daniels N, Walker D (2000) From chance to choice: genetics and justice. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Colwell RK (1989) Natural and unnatural history: biological diversity and genetic engineering. In: Shea W, Sitter B (eds) Scientists and their responsibilities. Watson Publishing International, Canton, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feinberg J (1980) The child’s right to an open future. In: Aiken W, Lafollette H (eds) Whose rights? Children’s rights, parental authority and state power. Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, pp 124–153Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Francione G (2000) Introduction to animal rights. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harman E (2004) Can we harm or benefit in creating? Philosophical Perspectives 18 Ethics 89–113Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harman E (2009) Harming as causing harm. In: Roberts M, Wasserman D (eds) Harming future persons: ethics, genetics, and the non-identity problem. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holland A (1995) Artificial lives: philosophical dimensions of farm animal biotechnology. In: Mepham TB, Tucker GA, Wiseman J (eds) Issues in agricultural bioethics. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, pp 293–306Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kass L (1997) The wisdom of repugnance. The New Republic June 2:17–26Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ortiz S (2004) Beyond welfare: animal integrity, animal dignity and genetic engineering. Ethics Environ 9:94–120Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. California University Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roberts M (2009) The nonidentity problem and the two envelope problem: when is one act better for a person than another? In: Roberts M, Wassersman D (eds) Harming future persons: ethics, genetics, and the non-identity problem. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 201–228Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sandoe P, Christensen S (2008) Ethics of animal use. Wiley Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sapontzis SF (1991) We should not manipulate the genome of domestic hogs. J Agric Environ Ethics 4:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thompson P (2008) The Opposite of Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken Problem. Nanoethics 2/3:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolf C (2009) Do future persons presently have alternative possible identities? In: Roberts M, Wasserman D (eds) Harming future persons: ethics, genetics, and the non-identity problem. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations