存在主义和我的“后狼”腊肠犬:基因工程时代的真实性。

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-06-25 DOI:10.1111/bioe.13428
Donrich Thaldar
{"title":"存在主义和我的“后狼”腊肠犬:基因工程时代的真实性。","authors":"Donrich Thaldar","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Human genetic engineering has the potential to profoundly alter the traits of future generations, raising critical ethical questions about authenticity and identity. Essentialist perspectives reject genetic engineering, claiming it inherently compromises authenticity by deviating from a species-typical genome. In contrast, this article advocates for an existentialist interpretation of authenticity, drawing on the philosophies of Heidegger and Sartre. Here, authenticity is understood as a dynamic and relational process rooted in individual choice, responsibility, and engagement with existential conditions. Unlike essentialism, existentialism evaluates genetic interventions not as inherently wrong but based on their alignment with values such as autonomy and authenticity, offering a more flexible and ethically robust framework. Existentialism's emphasis on individual freedom, self-determination, and the creation of meaning in life makes it ethically more compelling than essentialist frameworks, which impose deterministic constraints. Moreover, essentialist critiques falter when they concede the permissibility of therapeutic genetic engineering, undermining the notion of an inherently valuable species-typical human genome. In contrast, existentialism affirms the transformative potential of genetic engineering, recognising it as a means to expand autonomy, self-expression, and opportunities for flourishing when applied responsibly. The article advocates for a balanced ethical approach by integrating the Principle of Procreative Beneficence, which promotes enhancements to optimise flourishing, with the Principle of Procreative Non-Maleficence, which safeguards autonomy by preventing deterministic constraints. This complementary framework, grounded in an existentialist perspective, reframes authenticity as an evolving concept aligned with the transformative possibilities of genetic engineering, enriching the discourse on bioethics and identity in a rapidly changing era.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Existentialism and My 'Postwolf' Dachshund: Authenticity in the Age of Genetic Engineering.\",\"authors\":\"Donrich Thaldar\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bioe.13428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Human genetic engineering has the potential to profoundly alter the traits of future generations, raising critical ethical questions about authenticity and identity. Essentialist perspectives reject genetic engineering, claiming it inherently compromises authenticity by deviating from a species-typical genome. In contrast, this article advocates for an existentialist interpretation of authenticity, drawing on the philosophies of Heidegger and Sartre. Here, authenticity is understood as a dynamic and relational process rooted in individual choice, responsibility, and engagement with existential conditions. Unlike essentialism, existentialism evaluates genetic interventions not as inherently wrong but based on their alignment with values such as autonomy and authenticity, offering a more flexible and ethically robust framework. Existentialism's emphasis on individual freedom, self-determination, and the creation of meaning in life makes it ethically more compelling than essentialist frameworks, which impose deterministic constraints. Moreover, essentialist critiques falter when they concede the permissibility of therapeutic genetic engineering, undermining the notion of an inherently valuable species-typical human genome. In contrast, existentialism affirms the transformative potential of genetic engineering, recognising it as a means to expand autonomy, self-expression, and opportunities for flourishing when applied responsibly. The article advocates for a balanced ethical approach by integrating the Principle of Procreative Beneficence, which promotes enhancements to optimise flourishing, with the Principle of Procreative Non-Maleficence, which safeguards autonomy by preventing deterministic constraints. This complementary framework, grounded in an existentialist perspective, reframes authenticity as an evolving concept aligned with the transformative possibilities of genetic engineering, enriching the discourse on bioethics and identity in a rapidly changing era.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55379,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bioethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13428\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13428","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类基因工程有可能深刻地改变后代的特征,引发关于真实性和身份的关键伦理问题。本质主义者的观点反对基因工程,声称它偏离了物种典型的基因组,从本质上损害了真实性。与此相反,本文主张借鉴海德格尔和萨特的哲学,对真实性进行存在主义的解释。在这里,真实性被理解为一个动态的关系过程,植根于个人的选择、责任和对存在条件的参与。与本质主义不同,存在主义对基因干预的评估并非本质上是错误的,而是基于它们与自主性和真实性等价值观的一致性,提供了一个更灵活、道德上更健全的框架。存在主义强调个人自由、自我决定和生命意义的创造,这使得它在伦理上比本质主义框架更有说服力,后者施加了决定性的约束。此外,当本质主义者承认治疗性基因工程的可行性时,他们的批评就动摇了,这破坏了人类基因组固有价值的概念。相比之下,存在主义肯定了基因工程的变革潜力,认为它是一种扩大自主权、自我表达的手段,在负责任地应用时,它是繁荣的机会。本文主张通过将促进增强以优化繁荣的生殖善行原则与通过防止确定性约束来保护自治的生殖无害原则结合起来,采取一种平衡的伦理方法。这个互补的框架,以存在主义的视角为基础,将真实性重新定义为一个不断发展的概念,与基因工程的变革可能性相一致,在快速变化的时代丰富了关于生物伦理学和身份的论述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Existentialism and My 'Postwolf' Dachshund: Authenticity in the Age of Genetic Engineering.

Human genetic engineering has the potential to profoundly alter the traits of future generations, raising critical ethical questions about authenticity and identity. Essentialist perspectives reject genetic engineering, claiming it inherently compromises authenticity by deviating from a species-typical genome. In contrast, this article advocates for an existentialist interpretation of authenticity, drawing on the philosophies of Heidegger and Sartre. Here, authenticity is understood as a dynamic and relational process rooted in individual choice, responsibility, and engagement with existential conditions. Unlike essentialism, existentialism evaluates genetic interventions not as inherently wrong but based on their alignment with values such as autonomy and authenticity, offering a more flexible and ethically robust framework. Existentialism's emphasis on individual freedom, self-determination, and the creation of meaning in life makes it ethically more compelling than essentialist frameworks, which impose deterministic constraints. Moreover, essentialist critiques falter when they concede the permissibility of therapeutic genetic engineering, undermining the notion of an inherently valuable species-typical human genome. In contrast, existentialism affirms the transformative potential of genetic engineering, recognising it as a means to expand autonomy, self-expression, and opportunities for flourishing when applied responsibly. The article advocates for a balanced ethical approach by integrating the Principle of Procreative Beneficence, which promotes enhancements to optimise flourishing, with the Principle of Procreative Non-Maleficence, which safeguards autonomy by preventing deterministic constraints. This complementary framework, grounded in an existentialist perspective, reframes authenticity as an evolving concept aligned with the transformative possibilities of genetic engineering, enriching the discourse on bioethics and identity in a rapidly changing era.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
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