Autonomy’s deontological shell is already compromised by parental, cultural, and environmental influence
Evidence
Despite its admirable nuance and sense of urgency, Habermas’s argument suffers from two limitations. First, as in the case of ge ne tic engineering of nonhuman lifeforms, his objections understate the degree to which all lifeforms—human and nonhuman— have long been subjected to infl uence and control of a similar, albeit less technically precise nature. In that sense, the “deontological shell” of singularity and selfauthorship that Habermas believes to be threatened by ge ne tic engineering is already widely compromised, most obviously by the critical mating decision of one’s ge ne tic parents (which can be more selfaggrandizing than Habermas allows), but also by myriad cultural and environmental factors that are imposed upon the individual just as assuredly as ge ne tic design criteria and that frustrate any attempt to fi x a conceptual line between ge ne tic “therapy” and “enhancement.” — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 502
Categorization
- XREF: The genetic ‘therapy vs enhancement’ line parallels the book’s recurring unmasking of false categorical distinctions (nature/culture, science/politics) and echoes Rawlsian circumstances of justice themes. — connects to: Genetic engineering will make suffering-based moral standing a matter of design choice, not ontology — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 486; Autonomy as a secular-liberal ideal is class-differentiated and state-regulated; Individuality cannot escape the social system because its inner essence already embodies that system