Abstract
Genetic engineering is currently at the forefront of biotechnological innovation and aspires to change once and for ever the way we understand and handle human nature. Especially the growth of Eugenics makes us visualise a different world, where humanity will not only dispense itself from the detrimental gene mutations that are accountable for fatal illnesses, but will also ameliorate through prenatal gene manipulation. In the first part of this paper, I will introduce the responsibility-oriented morality of Hans Jonas, who supports vividly all efforts of negative Eugenics but seems sceptical about genetic enhancement, since on the one hand we have no right to decide on behalf of our descendants on what is best for them, and on the other due to his view that the abundance of our genetic stock should not hang on parents’ desires. In the second part, I will correlate these oppositions with Hannah Arendt’s concept of “natality”. Not only do Jonas and Habermas invoke it with applause; “natality” also discloses the very essence of birth, namely that each newborn epitomises total unpredictability and promises to renew human affairs. So, gene manipulation for enhancement purposes seems to encroach on “natality’s” dominion and diminish future autonomy. Finally, I will argue that, if Arendt’s conceptual frame consolidates objections to positive Eugenics, each unborn child holds a right to surprise, the content of which is not limited to an individual level but touches society and humanity.
Highlights
Genetic engineering is currently at the forefront of biotechnological innovation and aspires to change once and for ever the way we understand and handle human nature
Hans Jonas was one of the first pioneering thinkers to apprehend the necessity of tackling the tough questions that arise from decoding human DNA and from the implementation of this achievement in medical practise.[3]
Jonas’ main point is that, given the forthcoming full decoding of human genome and its potential utilisation in positive and negative Eugenics, we should emergently ponder on a new and cohesive ethics, sensitive to the challenges http://epublishing.ekt.gr | e-Publisher: EKT | Downloaded at 08/11/2021 16:51:58 |
Summary
Arendt on ‘natality’ It seems that something of extreme importance is at stake when it comes to human reproduction. “Natality” is described as the ontological foundation of humans’ capacity to act and, according to Arendt, “the fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable This again is possible only because each man is unique, so that with each birth something uniquely new comes into the world”.27. In commenting Arendt’s argumentation, Habermas asserts that every birth chases a clear line between man’s natural origin and heritage on the one hand and the human action within civilisation on the other hand He underlines that, thanks to this fundamental role of birth, that is of “natality”, “the acting person may proceed to the self-ascriptions without which he could not perceive himself as the initiator of his actions and aspirations”.31. “Natality”, provides constantly human life with renewed anthropological richness and reassures that humanity will never grow old both mentally and spiritually.[34]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
