Procreative Beneficence
Definition
Procreative Beneficence is a term coined by Julian Savulescu and is stated as, “Couples (or single reproducers) should select the child they could have who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” (Savulescu, 2001, 295). Breaking this principle down, it says reproducers should select a child that is likely to have the “best life.” The word, “should,” is explained by Savulescu to be “should” as in the phrase, “you should not smoke.” This implies that there is no coercion in the “should,” just persuasive evidence to do it. The “best life” is another point of discussion. Savulescu mentions: hedonistic, desire-fulfillment and objective list theories as ways of interpreting a “best life.” Savulescu claims that these three theories of wellbeing all converge on most cases of procreative …show more content…
After evaluating Savulescu’s arguments and counterarguments on the principle, it seems convincing and compelling that procreative beneficence is a moral obligation we ought to follow. Once it is measured against the major moral principles, however, many of the inconsistencies in Savulescu’s argument appear. It is worth mentioning that this is to be expected, as some of the major moral principles are in contradiction with each other. The principle of procreative beneficence is incompatible with the principles of justice and autonomy as evaluated above. Because of these inconsistencies, it cannot be claimed that the principle of procreative beneficence is a moral obligation. This is not to undermine the idea of the principle, but rather to claim that it cannot be seen as an absolute obligation that we ought to follow. Because of this, legislation forcing procreative beneficence would be incompatible with our society if the genetic technologies were
Definition
Procreative Beneficence is a term coined by Julian Savulescu and is stated as, “Couples (or single reproducers) should select the child they could have who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” (Savulescu, 2001, 295). Breaking this principle down, it says reproducers should select a child that is likely to have the “best life.” The word, “should,” is explained by Savulescu to be “should” as in the phrase, “you should not smoke.” This implies that there is no coercion in the “should,” just persuasive evidence to do it. The “best life” is another point of discussion. Savulescu mentions: hedonistic, desire-fulfillment and objective list theories as ways of interpreting a “best life.” Savulescu claims that these three theories of wellbeing all converge on most cases of procreative …show more content…
After evaluating Savulescu’s arguments and counterarguments on the principle, it seems convincing and compelling that procreative beneficence is a moral obligation we ought to follow. Once it is measured against the major moral principles, however, many of the inconsistencies in Savulescu’s argument appear. It is worth mentioning that this is to be expected, as some of the major moral principles are in contradiction with each other. The principle of procreative beneficence is incompatible with the principles of justice and autonomy as evaluated above. Because of these inconsistencies, it cannot be claimed that the principle of procreative beneficence is a moral obligation. This is not to undermine the idea of the principle, but rather to claim that it cannot be seen as an absolute obligation that we ought to follow. Because of this, legislation forcing procreative beneficence would be incompatible with our society if the genetic technologies were