Praxema Our partners
THE POSSIBILITY OF LIBERAL EUGENICS: ABSOLUTISM OF MORALITY VS PARTICULARISM OF MORALITY
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2021-3-19-38
Questions of eugenics still remain relevant, which is not only due to the scientific appeal of the subject of the research, but also has a certain social and political subtext. Ethical communication includes a different number of opinions on this issue: their analysis is important for creating a system of moral requirements in comparison with the traditional, classical understanding of morality. In order to talk about the possibility of liberal eugenics, the author of the article sets two main tasks: 1) to determine what the concept “moral system” includes, isolating the boundaries of the action of morality (particularizing) or, conversely, making it universal in its prescriptions (absolutizing); 2) to establish whether eugenic “interventions” associated with genetic variability are possible in this regard, or they are unacceptable. In the course of solving the first problem, the author comes to the conclusion that the logic does not contradict the individual-perfectionist morality: my desire is realizable if it does not infringe on the interests of other people and does not cause them any harm. Consequently, the traditional (classical) understanding of morality, which claims to be universal and universally valid, has outlived itself, and in the context of applied research is unacceptable since moral norms are idealized and abstracted from a specific human life. Therefore, within the framework of the study of the second task, the author believes that moral reorientation is necessary. However, full legalization can lead to the blurring of the boundaries of ideas about good and evil, and, in the case of a paternalistic approach, morality should be based on the precautionary principle associated with responsibility to future generations, which in this case forces us to return to absolute moral restrictions. Human curiosity generates a desire for eugenic research: the author of the article, by analyzing the moral dilemmas presented in specific cases, demonstrates that despite the fact that eugenic prospects seem quite tempting, they are fraught with certain “pitfalls” that can have unpredictable consequences. Therefore, even if moral absolutism does not stand up to criticism, its power remains significant. There is no doubt that the moral permissibility of interventions in the gene structures of potential members of the community should have its own limits of “justification”: if universal criteria are developed, their number will increase over time because it is impossible to grasp and anticipate all the cases of a particular human life, and this will lead to the blurring of the boundaries of the morally permissible. Therefore, the particularism of morality, as a way out of the situation, is not a new moral system, but a kind of a negative belt of heuristics that helps to ethically justify each specific unique case in liberal eugenics. The necessity of semiotic diagnostics of the boundaries of the morally permissible in each unique case has been fixed.
Keywords: semiotic diagnostics of the boundaries of the morally permissible, ethical discourse, biomedical technologies, absolutist moral prohibitions, moral choice, moral risk, pater-nalism, traditional morality, consequentialism
References:
AiF. (2011). V Rostove-na-Donu izmenili pol dvukhletnemu rebenku [In Rostov-on-Don, they changed the sex of a two-year-old child]. Argumenty i fakty, 48 (30 November).
Apresyan, R. G. (2008). Tsennostnye paradigmy vospitaniya [Value-based paradigms of education]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 1, 89–94.
Arendt, H. (1996). Istoki totalitarizma [The origins of totalitarianism]. Translated from English. TsentrKom.
Drobnitskiy, O. G. (2002). Moral’naya filosofiya: Izbrannye trudy [Moral philosophy: Selected works]. Gardariki.
Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign virtue: Theory and practice of equality. Harvard University Press.
Fando, R. A. (2014). Bioetika i evgenika: aksiologicheskiy dialog [Bioethics and eugenics: axiological dialogue]. Bioetika – Bioethics, 1(14), 23–26. (In Russian).
Finnis, J. (1991). Moral absolutes: Tradition, revision, and truth. Catholic University of America Press.
Fletcher, J. (1974). The ethics of genetic control: Ending reproductive roulette. Anchor Press: Doubleday.
Foucault, M. (2002). O prirode cheloveka. Spravedlivost’ protiv vlasti [Human nature: Justice versus power]. In V. P. Vizgin, & B. M. Skuratov (Eds.), Intellektualy i vlast’: Izbrannye politicheskie stat’i, vystupleniya i interv’yu [Intellectuals and power: Selected political articles, speeches and interviews] (vol. 1, pp. 81–147). Translated from French by S. Ch. Ofertas. Praksis.
Gorbuleva, M. S., Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V., & Pervushina, N. A. (2020). Pedagogical bioethics initiatives. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii – Higher Education in Russia, 29(6), 122–128. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-6-122-128
Grebenshchikova, E. G. (2020). Direct-to-consumer genomics and genetization of society: Rethinking identity, social relations and responsibility. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya – Sociological Studies, 2, 13–19. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250008490-2
Habermas, J. (2002). Budushchee chelovecheskoy prirody [The future of human nature] Translated from German. Ves’ mir.
Hartmann, N. (2002). Etika [Ethics]. Translated from German by A.V. Glagolev. Vladimir Dal’.
Jonas, H. (2004). Printsip otvetstvennosti. Opyt etiki dlya tekhnologicheskoy tsivilizatsii [The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age]. Translated from German by I.I. Makhan’kov. Ayris-press.
Kraut, R. (1999). Politics, Neutrality and the Good. Social Philosophy and Policy, 16(1), 315–330.
Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V. (2018). Diagnosis of bioethics models. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 45, 75–82. (In Russian). http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/45/8
Mescheryakova, T. V., Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V., Melik-Gaykazyan, M. V., & Kirilenko, B. O. (2016). Place of bioethics in knowledge management in the information society. In Kh. S. Soliman (Ed.), Vision 2020: Innovation Management, Development Sustainability, and Competitive Economic Growth. Proceedings of the 28th International Business Information Management Association Conference, 2187–2191.
Nassbaum, M. C. (1992). Human Functioning and Social Justice. Political Theory, 20(2), 216–220.
Osborn, F. (1974). History of the American Eugenics Society. Social Biology, 21(2), 115–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1974.9988099
Pashkova, A. E., Kostyukova, D. L., & Grigoryan, M. E. (2016). Evgenika – eto nauka proshlogo ili budushchego? [Is eugenics a science of the past or of the future?]. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal prikladnykh i fundamental’nykh issledovaniy – International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research, 11(4), 747–749.
Privalova, M. G., & Gavrilova, Yu. V. (2017). Eugenics projects from the perspective of the future of humanity. Obshchestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul’tura – Society: Philosophy, History, Culture, 12, 26–29. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24158/fik.2017.12.5
Prokof’ev, A. V. (2006). Spravedlivost’ i otvetstvennost’: sotsial’no-eticheskie problemy v filosofii morali [Justice and responsibility: Socio-ethical problems in the philosophy of morality]. Tula State Pedagogical University.
Prokof’ev, A. V. (2019a). Impartiality: The analysis of a moral concept. Chelovek, 30(4), 6–24. (In Russian).
Prokof’ev, A. V. (2019b). Morality, probability, and risk. Filosofskiy zhurnal – Philosophy Journal, 12(2), 5‒19. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2019-12-2-5-19
Razin, A. V. (2017). The basic ethical programs and decision-making in biomedical ethics. Vedomosti prikladnoy etiki – Semestrial Papers of Applied Ethics, 50, 51–66. (In Russian).
Savvina, O. V. (2013). Concept of medical norm in bioethical discourse. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Filosofiya – RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 3, 142–150. (In Russian).
Schweitzer, A. (1973). Kul’tura i etika [Culture and Ethics]. Translated from German by N. A. Zakharchenko, G. V. Kolshanskiy. Progress.
Tishchenko, P. D. (2020). Existential meaning of human design projects. Chelovek.RU, 15, 229–243. (In Russian). http://dx.doi.org/10.32691/2410-0935-2020-15-229-243
Tishchenko, P. D., & Yudin, B. G. (2015). Finest hour of philosophy. Voprosy filosofii, 12, 198–203. (In Russian).
Yudin, B. G. (2016). Technoscience and “human enhancement”. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki – Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, XLVIII(2), 18–27. (In Russian).
Yudin, B. G. (2018). The human in the techno-scientific projects. Nauka i innovatsii – Science and Innovations, 4(182), 11–14. (In Russian).
( 339.76 kB ) 
( 334.65 kB )
Issue: 3, 2021
Series of issue: Issue 3
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 19 — 38
Downloads: 290