Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 95–113 | Cite as

An Empirically Informed Critique of Habermas’ Argument from Human Nature

Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Genetic enhancement Human nature Kind essentialism Genetic determinism 

References

  1. Annas, G. (2005). American bioethics: Crossing human rights and health law boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Annas, G., Andrews, L., & Isasit, R. (2002). Protecting the endangered human. American Journal for Law and Medicine, 28(2–3), 151–178.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, J., et al. (2004). The influence of assisted reproduction on family functioning and children’s socio-emotional development: Results from a European Study. Human Reproduction, 19(6), 1480–1487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben Mitchell, C., Pellegrino, E., Elshtain, J., Kilner, J., & Rae, S. (2007). Biotechnology and the human good. Washington, DC: Georgetown U Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, M. (1998). On moral considerability: An essay on who morally matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, M. (2004). Without a tear: Our tragic relationship with animals. Chicago: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  7. Bostrom, N. (2005). In defence of posthuman dignity. Bioethics, 19(3), 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bostrom, N., & Ord, T. (2006). The reversal test: eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics, 116(4), 665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Boyd, R. (2010). Homeostasis, higher taxa, and monophyly. Philosophy of Science, 77(5), 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, D. (1991). Human universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, D. (1999). Human universals. In R. Wilson & F. Keil (Eds.), The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Buchannan, A. (2009a). Human nature and enhancement. Bioethics, 23(3), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchannan, A. (2009b). Moral status and human enhancement. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 37(4), 346–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buchannan, A. (2011). Beyond humanity?. Oxford: Oxford U Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buchannan, A. (2012). Better than human. Oxford: Oxford U Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Devitt, M. (2010). Species have (partly) intrinsic essences. Philosophy of Science, 77(5), 648–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Dupré, J. (2002). Humans and other animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dupré, J. (2003). Darwin’s legacy: What evolution means today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Edgar, A. (2009). The Hermeneutic challenge of genetic engineering: Habermas and the transhumanists. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 12(2), 157–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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/.
  24. Ereshefsky, M. (2010). What’s wrong with the new biological essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 77(5), 674–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feinberg, J. (1992). Freedom and fulfillment. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fenton, E. (2006). Liberal eugenics and human nature. Hastings Center Report, 36(6), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.
  28. Gibson, D., et al. (2010). Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science, 329(5987), 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gordon, J. (1999). Genetic enhancement in humans. Science, 283(5410), 2023–2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (1994). Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 91(6), 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gurham, D. (2012). Bioethics as science fiction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 21(2), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Habermas, J. (1982). A reply to my critics. In J. Thompson & D. Held (Eds.), Habermas: Critical debates. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  33. Habermas, J. (1999). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Habermas, J. (2003a). The future of human nature. Malden: Polity.Google Scholar
  35. Habermas, J. (2003b). A Sketch of L’Avenir de la Nature Humaine. APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Medicine, 3(1), 155–157.Google Scholar
  36. Hayry, M. (2012). Protecting humanity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 21(2), 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herissone-Kelly, P. (2012). Habermas, human agency, and genetic enhancement. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 21(2), 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Horowitz, A. (1985). Sons and daughters as caregivers to older parents: Differences in role performance and consequences. The Gerontologist, 25(6), 612–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kass, L. (1998). The wisdom of repugnance. Valparaiso University Law Review, 32(2), 679–705.Google Scholar
  40. Kass, L. (2003). Ageless bodies, happy souls: Biotechnology and the pursuit of perfection. The New Atlantis, 1(1), 9–28.Google Scholar
  41. Kierkegaard, S. (1987). Either/Or II. Translated by Hong and Hong. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kitcher, P. (2003). In mendel’s mirror: Philosophical reflections on biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  44. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When human transcend biology. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  45. Lander, E. S., et al. (2000). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature, 409(6822), 860–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lewens, T. (2012). Human nature: The very idea. Philosophy and Technology,. doi:10.1007/s13347-012-0063-x.Google Scholar
  47. Lewontin, R. (1992). Biology as ideology. New York: HarperPerrennial.Google Scholar
  48. Lewontin, R. (1995). Human diversity. New York: Scientific American Library.Google Scholar
  49. Lewontin, R. (2000). Triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Lewontin, R., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. (1984). Not in our genes: Biology, ideology, and human nature. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  52. Linzey, A. (2009). Why animal suffering matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Macklin, R. (2010). The ethics of sex selection and family balancing. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, 28(4), 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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/.
  55. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  57. 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/.
  58. Mikkelsen, T. S., et al. (2005). Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature, 437, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. NIH News. (2005). New genome comparison finds chimps, humans very similar at the DNA level. August 31st (article available at www.genome.gov).
  60. Oderberg, D. (2007). Real essentialism. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Okasha, S. (2002). Darwinian metaphysics: Species and the question of essentialism. Synthese, 131(2), 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Parens, E. (2004). Genetic differences and human identities: On why talking about behavioral genetics is important and difficult. Hastings Center Report Special Supplement, 34, S1–S35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pennings, G. (1996). Ethics for sex selection for family balancing. Human Reproduction, 11(11), 2339–2345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  65. Powell, R. (2012). The evolutionary biological implications of human genetic engineering. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 37(3), 204–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Powell, R., & Buchannan, A. (2011). Breaking evolution’s chains: The prospect of deliberate genetic modification in humans. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 36(1), 6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. President’s Council on Bioethics. (2002). Human cloning and human dignity. Washington, DC: Bioethics. Gov.Google Scholar
  68. Prusak, B. (2005). Rethinking liberal eugenics: Reflections and questions on Habermas on bioethics. Hastings Center Report, 35(6), 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Putnam, H. (1975). Mind, language, and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ridley, M. (1993). Evolution. Cambridge: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
  71. Rieppel, O. (2010). New essentialism in biology. Philosophy of Science, 77(5), 662–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Savulescu, J., & Dahl, E. (2000). Sex selection and preimplantation diagnosis. Human Reproduction, 15(9), 1879–1880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1996). Individualism, holism, and environmental ethics. Ethics and the Environment, 1(1), 55–69.Google Scholar
  74. Sober, E. (1980). Evolution, population thinking and essentialism. Philosophy of Science, 47(3), 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sober, E. (2000). Philosophy of biology. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  76. Sutcliffe, A. (2011). Reproductive technology and its impact on Psychological Child Development. Encyclopedia of Early Childhood Development. www.child-encyclopedia.com.
  77. Varki, A., Geschwind, D., & Eichler, E. (2008). Explaining human uniqueness: genome interactions with environment, behavior, and culture. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9, 749–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Venter, J. C., et al. (2001). The sequence of the human genome. Science, 291(5507), 1304–1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Watson, J., & Crick, F. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids: a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171(4356), 737–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Rock Ethics InstitutePenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations