Why Parents Should Enhance Their Children

  • Christopher Freiman
Part of the Jepson Studies in Leadership book series (JSL)


Christopher Freiman argues that parents have a defeasible moral obligation to use biotechnological enhancements to improve their children’s health and well-being. Freiman is skeptical that the distinction between an environmental enhancement and a biological enhancement is morally significant in its own right. Freiman also rejects the claims that parents must only pursue treatment but not enhancement, as well as the claim that parents should avoid enhancement on the grounds that they are likely to do more harm than good by attempting to actively control their children. Freiman concludes by considering the social costs and benefits of allowing parents to enhance their children, and ultimately maintains that even if there are some social costs and if enhancement strikes some people as repugnant, concerns about costs and feelings of repugnance do not undermine the case in favor of enhancing one’s children.


  1. Bostrom, Nick. 2005. In defense of posthuman dignity. Bioethics 19 (3): 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bostrom, Nick, and Toby Ord. 2006. The reversal test: Eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics 116 (4): 656–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Freiman, Christopher, and Adam Lerner. 2015. Self-ownership and disgust: Why compulsory body part redistribution gets under our skin. Philosophical Studies 172 (12): 3167–3190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Haidt, Jonathan. 2013. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  5. Harris, John. 2010. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jay, Mike. 2009. The day pain died: What really happened during the most famous moment in Boston medicine. Boston Globe. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.
  7. Kass, L.R. 1998. The wisdom of repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of humans. Valparaiso University Law Review. Valparaiso University. School of Law 32 (2): 679–705.Google Scholar
  8. Kass, Leon. 2003. Ageless bodies, happy souls. The New Atlantis 1: 9–28.Google Scholar
  9. Nussbaum, Martha Craven. 2004. Hiding from humanity: Disgust, shame, and the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Persson, Ingmar, and Julian Savulescu. 2012. Unfit for the future: The need for moral enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sandel, Michael. 2004. The case against perfection. The Atlantic. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.
  12. Savulescu, J. 2001. Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15 (5–6): 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Streeter, Kurt. 2014. On road to recovery, Todd Marinovich discovers painting. Los Angeles Times. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Freiman
    • 1
  1. 1.College of William & MaryVAUSA

Personalised recommendations