Presumably followed by abortion.
In “Genetically engineering ‘ethical’ babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor” (Telegraph, 16 Aug 2012), Richard Alleyne reports,
Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a “moral obligation” as it makes them grow up into “ethically better children”.
The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to “harm themselves and others”.
The academic, who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, made his comments in an article in the latest edition of Reader’s Digest.
“Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children. …”
Well, eugenics, “the best organized philanthropic project of all time” is back, having failed to learn a thing.
A friend writes to say that “Professor Julian Savulescu is an embarrassment to Oxford. Or perhaps Oxford has declined more than I had realized.” None of which means that the fellow would necessarily lack influence.
Predictably, Savulescu is an atheist.
It’s unclear why Savulescu thinks that bad people such as ourselves would be inclined to engineer “good” babies, as opposed to whatever kind we want. What we can’t or won’t raise, we are unlikely to engineer either.
On the other hand, if ethics is an illusion, as many Darwinians claim, it all works – because “good” has no independent content. It is merely a word used for effect.
See also: G. K. Chesterton on scientism