Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:52:39.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confronting Rationality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

RONALD M. GREEN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From the first initiatives in preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and gene therapy through the advent of stem cell research to the development of mammalian cloning, the past two decades have witnessed remarkable advances in “reprogenetic” medicine: the union of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) with genetic control. This period has also been marked by intense debates within the bioethical literature and in national policy forums about the appropriate uses of these emerging human capabilities. We can now, in a limited way, select for genetic traits, and the power to modify the genome or introduce new gene sequences is not far off. How should these new powers be used?

Type
Special Section: Methodology in Philosophical Bioethics
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 216 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Häyry, M.Rationality and the Genetic Challenge: Making People Better? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Henceforth all page references are in the text.

2. Green, RM.The first formulation of the categorical imperative as literally a “legislative” metaphor. History of Philosophy Quarterly 1991;8(2):163–79.Google Scholar

3. Rawls, J.A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971Google Scholar:Ch. 3.

4. Gert, B. Morality: Its Nature and Justification, rev. ed.NewYork: Oxford University Press; 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I further develop and apply this view, which I call the “NORM” (Neutral, Omnipartial Rule-Making) method in my book The Ethical Manager: A New Method for Business Ethics. New York: Macmillan; 1994Google Scholar.

5. Green RM. Rationality redux: A definitional and moral challenge to Gert’s account of rationality. Forthcoming in a festschrift in honor of the work of Bernard Gert.

6. See note 3, Rawls 1971:62.

7. Rawls introduces the concept of “comprehensive doctrines” in his Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press; 1993Google Scholar.

8. See note 3, Rawls 1971:62.

9. See note 3, Rawls 1971:154–5.

10. I leave aside the question of whether rule utilitarianism is, at bottom, a utilitarian or a public rule theory. My own view is that it is the former. See note 4, Green 1994:80–2.

11. Mundy, L.A world of their own. Washington Post Magazine, 2002 Mar 27.Google Scholar

12. Mutations in the connexin 26 (Cx26) gene have been found to be responsible for 50% of prelingual severe-to-profound nonsyndromic hearing loss. See McGuirt WT, Smith RJ. Connexin 26 as a cause of hereditary hearing loss. American Journal of Audiology 1999;8(2):93–100.

13. Häyry quotes Harris’s discussion from Harris, J.Is there a coherent social conception of disability? Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. See note 13, Harris 2000:97.

15. Green, RM.Parental autonomy and the obligation not to genetically harm one’s child: Implications for clinical genetics. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1997;25(1):5–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. For a more complete account of this analysis, see the discussion of malady in Gert, B, Culver, C, Clouser, KD.Bioethics: A Return to Fundamentals. New York: Oxford University Press; 1997Google Scholar:Ch. 5.

17. Green, RM.Babies by Design. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2007.Google Scholar

18. Green, RM.Population Growth and Justice: An Examination of Moral Issues Raised by Rapid Population Growth. Harvard Dissertations in Religion, No. 5. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press; 1976.Google Scholar

19. Mendieta, E. Habermason human cloning: The debate on the future of the species. Philosophy & Social Criticism 2004;30:721–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. See note 19, Mendieta 2004:727.