From Destiny to Freedom? On Human Nature and Liberal Eugenics in the Age of Genetic Manipulation

  • Michela Betta
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 30)

In his book on the fears plaguing the European cultures and societies between the 14th and 18th centuries, the French historian Jean Delumeau argues that the French Revolution would not have paved the way into the future or permanently removed the old fears from the collective mentality if it had not been progressively overcome by an economic and technological revolution (si elle n’avait pas e´te´ progressivement double´e par une re´volution e´conomique et technique1). A crucial aspect emerges from this quotation: The idea and belief that political transformations precede technological and scientific transformations, or that political changes create the conditions for their development and implementation. Historians have the inclination to read past epochs moving from codes and discourses embedded in political contexts and strategies.


Human Nature Genetic Manipulation Life Project Personal Freedom Life Plan 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Delumeau, J. 1978. LA PEUR en Occident. XIVe–XVIIIe sie`cles. Une cite assie´ge´e. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  2. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Foucault, M. 1994. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Book. [Les mots et les choses. 1966. Paris: Editions Gallimard]. xx.Google Scholar
  4. Habermas, J. 2003. The Future of Human Nature. London: Polity Press in association with Blackwell. [Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2001.] Interestingly, the title of the English version excludes the question that torments Habermas: Are we moving towards liberal eugenics? but it includes a postscript, missing in the German version, that reflects the dramatic tone of the debate between moral and practical philosophy.Google Scholar
  5. The colloquium on Law, Philosophy, and Social Theory was led by Ronald Dworkin and Thomas Nagel at New York University’s School of Law.Google Scholar
  6. Habermas, ibid., 95.Google Scholar
  7. Ibid., 12.Google Scholar
  8. Brownlie, J. 2004. Tasting the witches’ brew: Foucault and therapeutic Practices. Sociology 38(3): 515–532. Clarke, A. 2001. Genetic screening and counselling. In: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics. London: Blackwell, 215–228.Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, ibid., 22–44.Google Scholar
  10. Ibid., 44.Google Scholar
  11. Ibid., 21.Google Scholar
  12. Ibid., 17–18. Habermas, however, does not substantiate this aspect and it will therefore remain undiscussed in the present chapter.Google Scholar
  13. Ibid., 6–15.Google Scholar
  14. Ibid., 24.Google Scholar
  15. Agar, N. 1998. Liberal eugenics. Public Affairs Quarterly 12(2): 137–155. Text reprinted in Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer (eds.). 1999. Bioethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Agar, N. 2004. Liberal Eugenics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Ibid., 43 and 30, respectively.Google Scholar
  17. Timm, F.A. 2002. From the politics of fertility to liberal eugenics: what lessons can we learn from the case of twentieth-century Germany? Paper presented to the Comparative Program of Health and Society. Munk Centre for International Studies, 1 March, 20.Google Scholar
  18. Agar. 2004, ibid., 124.Google Scholar
  19. Habermas, ibid., 13.Google Scholar
  20. Ibid., 39. Here Habermas quotes the German Otfried Ho¨ ffe who used the expression in a newspaper article for Die Zeit, 1 February 2001, titled ‘‘Whose human dignity?’’Google Scholar
  21. Ibid., 44.Google Scholar
  22. Ibid., 14 and 63, respectively.Google Scholar
  23. Buchanan, A., Brock, D.W., Daniels, N. and Wikler, D. 2000. From Chance to Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 177–178.Google Scholar
  24. Agar. 2004, ibid.Google Scholar
  25. Agar. 1998, ibid. 141.Google Scholar
  26. Habermas, ibid., 92.Google Scholar
  27. Ibid., 21. A claim that he never substantiates.Google Scholar
  28. Wasserman, D. 2003. My fair baby: what’s wrong with parents genetically enhancing their children? In: Gehring, V. (ed.), Genetic Prospects: Essays on Biotechnology, Ethics, and Public Policy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 99–110. Quoted in Agar. 2004, ibid., 117.Google Scholar
  29. Agar. 2004, ibid., 117–118.Google Scholar
  30. Ibid., 118.Google Scholar
  31. Agar. 1998, ibid., 149.Google Scholar
  32. Agar. 2004, ibid., 113–114.Google Scholar
  33. Ibid., 120.Google Scholar
  34. Habermas, ibid., 91–92.Google Scholar
  35. Buchanan et al., 2000, ibid., 91.Google Scholar
  36. Agar. 1998, ibid., 150.Google Scholar
  37. Ibid., 137.Google Scholar
  38. Agar. 2004, ibid., 129.Google Scholar
  39. For example, Kitcher, P. 1996. The Lives to Come: The Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities. New York: Simon & Schuster. Glover, J. 1994. What Sort of People Should There Be? Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
  40. Agar. 1998, ibid., 137.Google Scholar
  41. Betta, M. 2000. Brauchen wir Menschenrechte? Ko¨nigstein/Taunus: Ulrike Helmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michela Betta
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Business & EnterpriseSwinburne University of TechnologyVICAustralia

Personalised recommendations