"Involuntary (Moral) Bioenhancement" Can Add Value to the Debate on Human Germline Genome Editing.

Abstract

Sparrow is absolutely correct when he claims we need a better understanding of counterfactuals, yet he ultimately draws the wrong conclusion. Competing metaphysical theories mean we do not have a universally agreed account of counterfactuals and identity across possible worlds. The different theoretical underpinnings we might choose from mean we are not in a position to absolutely and definitively claim that it is impossible to harm or benefit an individual through these pre-conceptual genetic choices and actions. Given such under-determination of theory, the entire debate needs to be refocused, rather than allow our ethical assessment to be governed by an entirely contestable position on metaphysics.