Distributive Justice and Genetics

Abstract

What will the demands of distributive justice be in the post‐genetic revolutionary world? Will genetic inheritance be regarded as socially distributed goods? This may seem a more reasonable position to assert as biotechnology progresses further toward human genetic manipulation. Advances in human genetics raise a number of unique considerations for theories of justice, ranging from the realisation of egalitarian ideals and the therapy/enhancement distinction to the scope and limits of reproductive freedom. As new empirical discoveries are made concerning the environmental and natural determinants of human welfare, theories of justice must re‐conceptualise what the demands of justice are and how society can fairly distribute the natural and social goods which influence the life prospects of humans.

Key Concepts:

  • Aging is the progressive loss of function accompanied by decreasing fertility and increasing mortality with advancing age.

  • Distributive justice is concerned with what constitutes a fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation.

  • Luck egalitarianism is the view which maintains that inequalities that are the result of factors beyond a person's control, such as inequalities in natural endowments, are unjust.

  • The Priority View maintains that it is morally more important to benefit the people who are worse off.

  • Procreative liberty is freedom in activities and choices related to procreation.

  • The Sufficiency View maintains that what is morally important is for everyone to have enough.

Keywords: distributive justice; equality; genes; John Rawls; natural lottery of life; reproductive freedom

References

Anderson E (1999) What is the point of equality? Ethics 109: 287–337.

Atzmon G, Schechter C, Greiner W et al. (2004) Clinical phenotype of families with longevity. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 52: 274–277.

Buchanan A, Brock D, Daniels N and Wikler D (2000) From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Butler RN, Miller RA, Perry D et al. (2008) New model of health promotion and disease prevention for the 21st century. British Medical Journal 337: 149–150.

Casal P (2007) Why sufficiency is not enough. Ethics 117: 296–326.

Daniels N (1985) Just Health Care. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Deary IJ, Spinath FM and Bates TC (2006) Genetics of intelligence. European Journal of Human Genetics 14: 690–700.

Farrelly C (2010) Equality and the duty to retard human aging. Bioethics 24(8): 384–394.

Fowler J and Dawes C (2008) Two genes predict voter turnout. Journal of Politics 70(3): 579–594.

Kirkwood T and Austad S (2000) Why do we age? Nature 408: 233–238.

Meyer‐Lindenberg A, Buckholtz J, Kolachana B et al. (2006) Neural mechanisms of genetic risk for impulsivity and violence in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 103(16): 6269–6274.

New England Centenarian Study, website: http://www.bumc.bu.edu/centenarian/overview/ [accessed 31 October 2011].

Olshansky SJ, Perry D, Miller RA and Butler RN (2006) The longevity dividend. The Scientist 20: 28–36.

Perls T, Bubrick E, Wager C et al. (1998) Siblings of centenarians live longer. The Lancet 351: 1560.

Rawls J (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Robertson J (1986) Embryos, families, and procreative liberty: the legal structure of the new reproduction. Southern California Law Review 59: 501–602.

Young L (2009) Love: neuroscience reveals all. Nature 457: 148.

van der Zwaluw CS, Kuntsche E and Engels R (2011) Risky alcohol use in adolescence: the role of genetics (DRD2, SLC6A4) and coping motives. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 35(4): 756–764.

Further Reading

Baylis F and Robert JS (2004) The inevitability of genetic enhancement technologies. Bioethics 18(1): 1–26.

Buchanan A (1995) Equal opportunity and genetic intervention. Social Philosophy and Policy 12(2): 105–135.

Buchanan A (1996) Genetic manipulation and the morality of inclusion. Social Philosophy and Policy 13(2): 18–46.

Buchanan A (2011) Beyond Humanity? The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cooke E (2003) Germ‐line engineering, freedom, and future generations. Bioethics 17(1): 32–58.

Daniels N (2000) Normal functioning and the treatment‐enhancement distinction. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9(2): 309–322.

Farrelly C (2002) Genes and social justice: a Rawlsian reply to Moore. Bioethics 16(2): 72–83.

Glannon W (2001) Genes and Future People. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Harris J (1998) Clones, Genes and Immortality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Harris J (2007) Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Heyd D (1992) Genethics: Moral Issues in the Creation of People. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Kitcher P (1996) The Lives to Come: The Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Mehlman M and Botkin J (1998) Access to the Genome: The Challenge to Equality. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Resnick D (1997) The morality of human gene patents. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7(1): 43–61.

Savulescu J (2002) Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15(5): 413–426.

Steiner H (1999) Silver spoons and golden genes. In: Burely J (ed.) The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights, pp. 133–151. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Farrelly, Colin(Apr 2012) Distributive Justice and Genetics. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0005889.pub2]