Test #2 Flashcards
Validity
a necessary connection between the premise and the conclusion
Invalidity
no necessary connection between the premise and the conclusion
What are the two types of selection? *Brock
negative and positive
What is negative selection? *Brock
- abortion because of something
- improving society as a whole
What is positive selection? *Brock
selecting traits, improving the individual
Message that negative selection might send against disability *Brock
- Might say that we don’t value the lives of the disabled as much as the abled
- that we look down on disabilities as don’t see those people as desirable
- value mother’s situation over the child with disabilities
The idea of the “Perfect Child” *Brock
-there is no cookie-cutter model of this anyway, everyone has their own perception of what this would look like
-there is an environmental/cultural influence on what we think this is
→ diversity may remain even with enhancement because different groups of people desire different traits
Positional goods vs. intrinsic goods *Singer
Positional: goods only relative to some other good (ex. being taller than “average”)
Intrinsic: good in itself (ex. happiness)
Who does positive selection or enhancement harm? Parents/Enhanced Children/Other children? *Singer
Parents:
- they are setting standards for their children that may not come true, there could be disappointment
- may be said that parents are “not harmed because they’re getting what they want”
Enhanced Children
- it would not be good for them to have standards set for them before they are even born
- doesn’t give them freedom to choose who they want to become, but being alive and enhanced (“a product”) is better than being unenhanced and non-existent
Other Non-Enhanced Children
- we are saying that those who are unenhanced are not as “privileged” as those who are enhanced
- could threaten equal opportunity
- may pose problems to other children in a family with an enhanced child because they would wonder why they weren’t enhanced like their sibling, “are they more valuable than me?”
Self-determination/autonomy *Shimazono
act of making decisions on matters relating to one’s self
How are views on negative selection/positive selection different in Japan? *Shimazono
- Japan doesn’t believe in genetic selection for sex
- Japan is critical overall of PGD because they don’t fear eugenic takeover
- Religion has stronger voice in US (pro-life)
- most PGD with Downs Syndrome are aborted in US
- Japan values community more
- much less selection in Japan because…
- value community
- don’t want to put ideas into people’s heads (abortion) that weren’t there before
- US doesn’t put as big of a negative mark on it because…
- more individualism, “its your problem, you have to deal with it”
How does the presentation of information about a child’s genetic potential possibly manipulate a mother into choosing to terminate her pregnancy? *Shimazono
- presenting the info about a potential disability can be presented in a coercive/manipulative way making the mother want to abort, limits autonomy/free choice
- also presenting info about the possibility of abortion could present an option that wasn’t even a thought beforehand
- pediatricians are more adequate to talk about the life of the disabled than obstetricians because the pediatricians has seen the positive effects of a life of disability, growth and development
His definitions of negative intervention, positive intervention, and enhancement as they relate to sports medicine *Tannsjo
Negative intervention: curing something/eliminating handicap
Positive intervention: improving function within normal limits
Enhancement: takes individual beyond normal limits of functioning
What is the Ethos of elite sport? *Tannsjo
the elements that we find valuable in sports (competition, fascination, fairness, exploring limits of human nature)
Long Legs case (3M long legs, can he compete in the high jump?) and Oscar Pistorius case *Tannsjo
- Long Legs: consider this an enhancement because 3m long legs is not within normal limits → shouldn’t be able to compete
- Oscar Pistorious: his prosthetic legs are positive intervention because without them he would be below normal limits of functioning → can’t truly answer if it’s his athletic ability or his prosthetics that make him such a great runner, don’t know whether he should compete or not (split consensus, author says yes he should be able to compete because he wasn’t enhanced past normal human limits)
luck egalitarianism *Wikler
equal opportunity, equal chance/opportunity/access to some sort of good (ex. everyone getting an equal chance at getting a good education)
outcome egalitarianism *Wikler
equal outcomes, people are actual equal in the end
Relativistic account of competence vs. Range property account of competence *Wikler
relativistic: competence is determined relative to a difference between people
- relative to an average/one’s self
- we judge people mentally inferior who are their IQ is two standard deviations below ours (100 IQ vs. 72 IQ)
range property: incompetence is relative to an absolute threshold (ex. 70 IQ)
-may change for certain tasks
What is autonomy? *Wikler
being self-sufficient, freedom to make one’s own decisions where those decisions concern one’s self
What is paternalism? *Wikler
acting parentally, limiting autonomy for someone’s own good
RECONSTRUCTION of Wikler’s argument
P1: Today we restrict the autonomy of people judged to be incompetent.
P2: If the relative account of competence is true, then in set-up, the vastly intelligent can justify restricting autonomy of “normals” on those grounds.
P3: Assume relativistic account of competence is true.
——————————————————————————–
C1: In set-up, “normal” would be designated incompetent.
P4: It is bad for society to designate some people as incompetent because those people do not have the full status of free citizens.
P5: According citizenship status widely is necessary for egalitarianism.
——————————————————————————
C2: Set-up poses a problem for egalitarianism.
Problems with Wikler’s argument
- it assumes that the relativistic account of competence is true, but it may not be (range property is possible and then the argument doesn’t work)
- do egalitarianism really require according citizenship widely
- doesn’t say why it is bad to label people incompetent
- we cannot judge the future based on our past, we may not actually judge people incompetent and in need of paternalistic approach
