An Empirically Informed Critique of Habermas’ Argument from Human Nature
In a near-future world of bionics and biotechnology, the main ethical and political issue will be the definition of who we are. Could biomedical enhancements transform us to such an extent that we would be other than human? Habermas argues that any genetic enhancement intervention that could potentially alter ‘human nature’ should be morally prohibited since it alters the child’s nature or the very essence that makes the child who he is. This practice also commits the child to a specific life project or, in any case, it puts specific restrictions on his freedom to choose a life of his own. Ultimately, genetic enhancement jeopardizes the very foundations of moral equality. I contend that Habermas’ argument is based either on a series of presuppositions that imply a gross misunderstanding of evolution or the relevant factual information cocerning the action we are about to morally assess is not empirically supported. Hence, the argument from human nature is based on a series of false or problematic assumptions, and, as such, it fails to play the normative role intended by Habermas.
KeywordsGenetic enhancement Human nature Kind essentialism Genetic determinism
Many thanks to those who gave me valuable feedback on early presentations of this material, including Mark Bernstein, Dan Smith, Eric Meslin, Daniel Kelly and the Research Staff at the Hastings Center. I would also like to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions on a previous version of this paper.
- Annas, G. (2005). American bioethics: Crossing human rights and health law boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Annas, G., Andrews, L., & Isasit, R. (2002). Protecting the endangered human. American Journal for Law and Medicine, 28(2–3), 151–178.Google Scholar
- Ben Mitchell, C., Pellegrino, E., Elshtain, J., Kilner, J., & Rae, S. (2007). Biotechnology and the human good. Washington, DC: Georgetown U Press.Google Scholar
- Bernstein, M. (1998). On moral considerability: An essay on who morally matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bernstein, M. (2004). Without a tear: Our tragic relationship with animals. Chicago: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
- Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Brown, D. (1991). Human universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Brown, D. (1999). Human universals. In R. Wilson & F. Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Buchannan, A. (2012). Better than human. Oxford: Oxford U Press.Google Scholar
- de Grey, A., & Rae, M. (2007). Ending aging: The rejuvenation breakthroughs that could reverse human aging in our lifetime. New York: St Martin.Google Scholar
- Dobzhansky, T., & Spasky, B. (1944). Genetics of natural populations. XI. Manifestations of genetic variants in Drosophila pseudoobscura in different environments. Genetics, 29, 270–290.Google Scholar
- Dupré, J. (2002). Humans and other animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dupré, J. (2003). Darwin’s legacy: What evolution means today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Ereshefsky, M. (2007). Species (entry). In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/species/.
- Feinberg, J. (1992). Freedom and fulfillment. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Fetterman, A. (2007). Becoming ‘parent of your parent’ an emotionally wrenching process. USA Today. Available at http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/eldercare/2007-06-24-elder-care-cover_N.htm.
- Habermas, J. (1982). A reply to my critics. In J. Thompson & D. Held (Eds.), Habermas: Critical debates. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. (1999). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. (2003a). The future of human nature. Malden: Polity.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. (2003b). A Sketch of L’Avenir de la Nature Humaine. APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Medicine, 3(1), 155–157.Google Scholar
- Kass, L. (1998). The wisdom of repugnance. Valparaiso University Law Review, 32(2), 679–705.Google Scholar
- Kass, L. (2003). Ageless bodies, happy souls: Biotechnology and the pursuit of perfection. The New Atlantis, 1(1), 9–28.Google Scholar
- Kierkegaard, S. (1987). Either/Or II. Translated by Hong and Hong. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Kitcher, P. (2003). In mendel’s mirror: Philosophical reflections on biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When human transcend biology. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R. (1992). Biology as ideology. New York: HarperPerrennial.Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R. (1995). Human diversity. New York: Scientific American Library.Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R. (2000). Triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R. (2006). The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(3), 520–525 (initially published in (1974). American Journal of Human Genetics, 26, 400–411).Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. (1984). Not in our genes: Biology, ideology, and human nature. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
- Marcus, G. (2004). Behold the talking chimp. The Scientist. Available at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/15713/title/Behold-the-Talking-Chimp/.
- Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- McDonald, W. (2011). Søren Kierkegaard (entry). In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/kierkegaard/.
- NIH News. (2005). New genome comparison finds chimps, humans very similar at the DNA level. August 31st (article available at www.genome.gov).
- Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
- President’s Council on Bioethics. (2002). Human cloning and human dignity. Washington, DC: Bioethics. Gov.Google Scholar
- Ridley, M. (1993). Evolution. Cambridge: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
- Shrader-Frechette, K. (1996). Individualism, holism, and environmental ethics. Ethics and the Environment, 1(1), 55–69.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (2000). Philosophy of biology. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Sutcliffe, A. (2011). Reproductive technology and its impact on Psychological Child Development. Encyclopedia of Early Childhood Development. www.child-encyclopedia.com.