[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]
[Central Entry Directory]
[Posthumanism, Entry Directory]
[Siep's "Normative Aspects of the Human Body", Entry Directory]
[The following is summary. The full text is available here or here.]
[Directory of other entries in this series.]
Ludwig Siep
Recent genetic research suggests we may soon change our genes to live longer healthier lives. These modifications would alter both our body’s normal shape and the usual way we obtain it. But all of society could suffer from even one person’s enhancements. So before we allow them, we must determine our collective valuation of the human body's integrity. This will tell us if individuals have the right to modify their genes.
But the body’s valuations have varied widely throughout humanity's rich cultural history. They range from God's image to the devil's instrument. And the ways people treat their body are just as various. Some punish it. Others treat it like a temple.
Some even choose to alter their body. There are many ways and reasons they do so. They use nutrition, drugs, and surgery. This alters its size, growth, and functioning. And they do this for religion, aesthetics, hygienics, medical health, and so forth. Some of these modifications deform the body. There are Indian parents who break their children's legs to make them more successful beggars.
Norms seem impossible when our valuations vary so dramatically. And are not autonomous citizens free to treat their body as they choose?
Siep disagrees. There are currently public debates aiming to decide every individual’s rights to abortion, euthanasia, self-mutilation, and gene therapy. And many of the ways we treat our body have negative consequences for other people. Even self-mutilations can burden the public's medical resources.
Or, consider positive consequences. Genetic changes could potentially spare future generations from considerable suffering. Thus we might be morally obligated to improve their genes. So consequences alone cannot ground our criteria. But norms could. That way we can know if individuals have the right to genetically alter the body they inherit or pass-on. Siep offers four reasons for why they do not.
Thesis 1. Many social rules follow from our body as it is. So if we change our body, we disrupt society’s order. Our bodies are holistic organisms. If you modify one part, you change the functioning of the whole. Likewise, all our genes work together holistically. Hence a change in one gene will alter the body's entire "shape" and functioning.
So those who improve their genes will differ vastly from everyone else. And they will be legally responsible for those advantages. A whole new category of laws would be needed to ensure that that modifications do not create injustice. This is one way that changes to the human body’s normal shape disrupts society’s structure and functioning.
Thesis 2. To take care of everyone's bodily necessities, society must distribute such goods as health care, food, and shelter to those in need. To do so on a wide scale, we must know how valuable certain things are for a normal human body. Otherwise there would be no basis to determine how to portion-out the goods to everyone.
Our long natural and cultural history has endowed us with our sense for what is valuable to normal human bodies. Society has come to depend-on our shared bodily heritage. So genetic changes will disrupt the orderly way we take care-of everyone’s bodies.
Thesis 3. Our genetic make-up is part of our common heritage. If we pass-on altered genes, then we deny future generations their right to participate-in humanity's long bodily tradition. Consider how we have inherited historical buildings, artwork, and natural landscapes. If someone were to damage any of these, they would be subtracting from everyone's common heritage. The public has the right to stop private owners from destroying human artifacts. Our normal body is perhaps our most precious one. So we can demand that no one genetically deforms it.
Thesis 4. We might soon have genetic technologies for protecting our descendents from hereditary diseases. But everyone has their own wish for how long they live. And some people value their mortality and bodily frailties. So we cannot force longer lives or perfect health upon future generations. But we do not need to value every terrible disease. Society must decide together which ones we should eliminate. But even then it is still better to let the next generations decide for themselves. This also means that parents should not make any changes to their children’s genetic make-up, although certain exceptional cases might be permissible. But to determine the exceptions we must establish what is normal.
No comments:
Post a Comment