Savulescu interviewed on ‘procreative beneficence’
by Michael Cook | 10 Nov 2019 |
Should we use genetic testing to choose which children to bring into the world? How should we choose them? Is it acceptable deliberately to choose to create a deaf child? Should we choose children on the basis of traits such as intelligence or fitness, if we can? Does genetic selection put too much pressure on prospective parents?
In this YouTube podcast with Katrien Devolder, of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Professor Julian Savulescu, the Centre’s director, defends his view that we should select those children, from among the children we could have, who will have the best chance at having the best life.
Savulescu’s utilitarianism is controversial but many people find it attractive. This interview gives a good insight into his theories.
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge
It sounds like the premise for a Stephen King novel, but it’s real life. Benjamin Schreiber, a 66-year-old man, is serving a life sentence for murder in an Iowa prison. Back in 1996, he bludgeoned a man to death with an axe handle. In 2015 he suddenly became seriously ill, so ill that he lapsed into a coma and “died”.
But he recovered. Disappointed that he was still alive, he appealed to have his life sentence voided as it had already “expired”.
It’s an intriguing argument. Can you live two lives? Are you the same person after being resuscitated? Or are you literally a dead man walking?
Unfortunately for Schreiber, the court took a dim view of his request.
“We do not find his argument persuasive,” wrote a judge this week. She concluded: “Schreiber is either still alive, in which case he must remain in prison, or he is actually dead, in which case this appeal is moot.”
This ruling will allow the citizens of Iowa to sleep easier at night, but philosophically isn’t a bit naive in the way it addresses the problem of identity? Isn’t it possible that Mr (1996) Schreiber is dead and that Mr (2019) Schreiber is a different person? If S(2019) identifies as a dead person, shouldn’t we accept his carefully considered opinion?
But he recovered. Disappointed that he was still alive, he appealed to have his life sentence voided as it had already “expired”.
It’s an intriguing argument. Can you live two lives? Are you the same person after being resuscitated? Or are you literally a dead man walking?
Unfortunately for Schreiber, the court took a dim view of his request.
“We do not find his argument persuasive,” wrote a judge this week. She concluded: “Schreiber is either still alive, in which case he must remain in prison, or he is actually dead, in which case this appeal is moot.”
This ruling will allow the citizens of Iowa to sleep easier at night, but philosophically isn’t a bit naive in the way it addresses the problem of identity? Isn’t it possible that Mr (1996) Schreiber is dead and that Mr (2019) Schreiber is a different person? If S(2019) identifies as a dead person, shouldn’t we accept his carefully considered opinion?
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Nov 10, 2019
Supporters of abortion welcomed the decisionby Michael Cook | Nov 10, 2019
First in the United Statesby Michael Cook | Nov 10, 2019
What if the parents are drug addicts who effectively beat her to death?by Michael Cook | Nov 10, 2019
We are in a crisis, say some scientistsby Michael Cook | Nov 10, 2019
Even 25 years after legalisation in Oregonby Michael Cook | Nov 10, 2019
This interview gives a good insight into his theoriesby Xavier Symons | Nov 10, 2019
IVF experts have criticised fertility clinics for marketing expensive additional therapiesby Xavier Symons | Nov 10, 2019
A leading ethics journal has published a feature issue on conscientious objection BioEdge
Level 1, 488 Botany Road, Alexandria NSW 2015 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario