Animal Disenhancement and the Non-Identity Problem: A Response to Thompson

NanoEthics 5 (1):43-48 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In his paper The Opposite of Human Enhancement: Nanotechnology and the Blind Chicken problem (Nanoethics 2:305–316, 2008) Paul Thompson argues that the possibility of disenhancing animals in order to improve animal welfare poses a philosophical conundrum. Although many people intuitively think such disenhancement would be morally impermissible, it’s difficult to find good arguments to support such intuitions. In this brief response to Thompson, I accept that there’s a conundrum here. But I argue that if we seriously consider whether creating beings can harm or benefit them, and introduce the non-identity problem to discussions of animal disehancement, the conundrum is even deeper than Thompson suggests

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-04-06

Downloads
214 (#188,946)

6 months
48 (#173,480)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Clare Alexandra Palmer
Texas A&M University

References found in this work

Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford, GB: Oxford Paperbacks.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 1985 - University of California Press.
The case for animal rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn, Exploring ethics: an introductory anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press USA. pp. 425-434.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 1985 - Human Studies 8 (4):389-392.

View all 16 references / Add more references