Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Parental genetic shaping and parental environmental shaping

Bibliographic Data

ID10344277
AuthorsAnca Gheaus (0000-0002-5364-1026, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, corresponding author)
Year2017
Volume68
Issue271
Pages436-436
Publication date2017-07-22
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Philosophical Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-8094 • E-ISSN: 1467-9213
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1093/pq/pqx038
OpenAlexW4250922176
LanguageEN
Citations received5
References cited18

Analytic philosophers tend to agree that intentional parental genetic shaping and intentional parental environmental shaping for the same feature are, normatively, on a par. I challenge this view by advancing a novel argument, grounded in the value of fair relationships between parents and children: Parental genetic shaping is morally objectionable because it unjustifiably exacerbates the asymmetry between parent and child with respect to the voluntariness of their entrance into the parent–child relationship. Parental genetic shaping is, for this reason, different from and more objectionable than parental environmental shaping. I introduce a distinction between procreative decisions one makes qua mere procreator—that is, without the intention to rear the resulting child—and procreative decisions one makes qua procreator-and-future childrearer. Genetic shaping is objectionable when undertaken in the latter capacity: Both selection and enhancement are objectionable because they introduce an unnecessary and avoidable inequality in the parent–child relationship; in the case of enhancement, this also results in harm to the future child

Argument (complex analysis · Biology · Epistemology · Evolutionary biology · Harm · Value (mathematics · Voluntariness · Child Welfare and Adoption · Cognitive Abilities and Testing · Computer Science · Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations · Philosophy · Psychology · Science Education and Perceptions · Social Psychology

  • Independence for Children

    Matthew Clayton•Independence for Children•2025

  • Shaping children through genetic and environmental means

    Christopher Gyngell, Tamara Kayali Browne•Journal of Medical Ethics•2024

  • Sci‐Fi Parenthood and the End of Love

    Open Access•Daniela Cutas•Journal of Social Philosophy•2025

  • The ethics of doing human enhancement ethics

    Open Access•Jon Rueda Etxeberria•Futures•2023

  • Family Values

    Harry Brighouse, Adam Swift•Family Values•2014

  • From Chance to Choice

    Open Access•Allen Buchanan, Dan W Brock et al.•From Chance to Choice•2000

  • Procreative Beneficence

    Open Access•Julian Savulescu•Bioethics•2001

  • Wrongful Life, Procreative Responsibility, and the Significance of Harm

    Open Access•Seana Valentine Shiffrin•Legal Theory•1999

  • Equality, Priority, and Positional Goods

    Harry Brighouse, Adam Swift•Ethics•2006

  • Justice and Legitimacy in Upbringing

    Matthew Clayton•JUSTICE AND LEGITIMACY IN…•2006

  • Reprogenetics and the “Parents Have Always Done It” Argument

    Open Access•Eve Malmqvist, Erik Malmqvist•The Hastings Center Report•2011

  • Liberal Eugenics

    Open Access•Nicholas Agar•Liberal Eugenics•2004

Unique citing works4
Citations per year1,67
Citation span2023 - 2025 (3)
Citation velocityrecent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 5

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae