Reevaluating repugnance: a critical analysis of Leon Kass' writings on genetic reproductive technologies.

Princeton journal of bioethics Pub Date : 2002-01-01
Michael Kimberly
{"title":"Reevaluating repugnance: a critical analysis of Leon Kass' writings on genetic reproductive technologies.","authors":"Michael Kimberly","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent philosophical and political discourse surrounding the issue of human cloning has dominated both public and academic arenas. With the dual potential to address human disease, distress, and disorder in unprecedented ways, and to offend a vast public uncomfortable with the technology, cloning represents a true political conundrum. Adulterated by the opinion of an uninformed public, the murky waters of public policy-making foster arguments like Leon Kass' \"Wisdom of Repugnance.\" Unfortunately, such appeals to repulsion do not fare as well in the academic arena. Kass proposes that society yield to repugnance as an ethically relevant factor, since the elicitation of such repugnance signifies the defilement of human nature. However, such an application of repulsion and offense to human nature leads to improbable conclusions and internal contradictions that soundly repudiate the acceptance of such a principle. Thus, rather than pre-analytically yielding to visceral emotions and passions, individual rational agents--and the public generally--ought to thoroughly analyze all of the relevant factors surrounding cloning before, and perhaps instead of, rejecting the technology simply because it elicits repugnance.</p>","PeriodicalId":82362,"journal":{"name":"Princeton journal of bioethics","volume":"5 ","pages":"8-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Princeton journal of bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent philosophical and political discourse surrounding the issue of human cloning has dominated both public and academic arenas. With the dual potential to address human disease, distress, and disorder in unprecedented ways, and to offend a vast public uncomfortable with the technology, cloning represents a true political conundrum. Adulterated by the opinion of an uninformed public, the murky waters of public policy-making foster arguments like Leon Kass' "Wisdom of Repugnance." Unfortunately, such appeals to repulsion do not fare as well in the academic arena. Kass proposes that society yield to repugnance as an ethically relevant factor, since the elicitation of such repugnance signifies the defilement of human nature. However, such an application of repulsion and offense to human nature leads to improbable conclusions and internal contradictions that soundly repudiate the acceptance of such a principle. Thus, rather than pre-analytically yielding to visceral emotions and passions, individual rational agents--and the public generally--ought to thoroughly analyze all of the relevant factors surrounding cloning before, and perhaps instead of, rejecting the technology simply because it elicits repugnance.

重新评估厌恶:莱昂·卡斯关于基因生殖技术著作的批判性分析。
最近围绕人类克隆问题的哲学和政治话语在公共和学术领域都占主导地位。克隆技术具有双重潜力,既能以前所未有的方式解决人类疾病、痛苦和混乱,又能冒犯对这项技术感到不安的广大公众,因此它代表了一个真正的政治难题。在不知情的公众意见的掺和下,公共决策的浑浊之水催生了莱昂·卡斯(Leon Kass)的《厌恶的智慧》(Wisdom of repuance)等论点。不幸的是,这种对排斥的呼吁在学术领域并不奏效。卡斯提出,社会屈服于厌恶是一种伦理相关因素,因为这种厌恶的引发意味着人性的污秽。然而,这种对人性的排斥和冒犯的应用会导致不可能的结论和内部矛盾,从而完全拒绝接受这种原则。因此,与其在分析前屈服于本能的情绪和激情,个人的理性行为者——以及一般的公众——应该在克隆之前彻底分析所有与克隆相关的因素,而不是仅仅因为它引起反感就拒绝这项技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书