Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:39:25.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In defense of the Genetic Virtue Program: A rejoinder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Mark Walker
Mark Walker*
Affiliation:
Richard L. Hedden Chair of Advanced Philosophical Studies, Department of Philosophy, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003 [email protected]
Get access

Extract

The target paper of this invited forum has a vaulting ambition: to convince readers that we ought to attempt to reduce evil in our world by constructing an interdisciplinary program, which I call the Genetic Virtue Program (GVP), to enhance the biological aspects of virtue. Most of the contributors to this forum are not sympathetic to the project—to put it mildly. Yet, one of the surprising things, at least to this author, is that comparatively little is said about the paper's overall ambition. Jamie Bronstein offers the idea that better socialization may be key: “No one would argue that there have not also been great evils; but the historical record doesn't support the level of improbability for further moral improvement through socialization that Walker would like to assign.” However, nowhere do I claim that there is no prospect for further moral improvement through socialization. Indeed, in recently published work I specifically recommend that we improve socialization efforts to enhance virtue by tracking prosocialization efforts.

Type
Forum: Genetic virtue, reconsidered
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 90 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.“The angelic hierarchy: Aligning ethical push and pull,” Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 2008, 2(3): 1–34.Google Scholar
2.Brooks, David, “The Harlem miracle,” New York Times May 8, 2009, p. A31.Google Scholar
3.Plomin, Robert, DeFries, John, McClearn, Gerald, and McGuffin, Peter, Behavioral Genetics, 5th ed. (New York: Worth, 2008).Google Scholar
4.Sullivan, Patrick, “The genetics of schizophrenia,” PLoS Med 2005, 2(7): e212. DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020212Google Scholar
5.Talkowski, Michael E., Kirov, George, Bamne, Mikhil, Georgieva, Lyudmila, Torres, Gonzalo, Mansour, Hader, Chowdari, Kodavali V., Milanova, Vihra, Wood, Joel, McClain, Lora, Prasad, Konasale, Shirts, Brian, Zhang, Jianping, O'Donovan, Michael C., Owen, Michael J., Devlin, Bernie, and Nimgaonkar, Vishwajit L., “A network of dopaminergic gene variations implicated as risk factors for schizophrenia,” Human Molecular Genetics 2008, 17(5): 747–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Plomin, , et al., op. cit., is an authoritative reference on these issues. For the non-specialist, see alsoWrestling with Behavioral Genetics, edited by Parens, Erik, Chapman, Audrey, and Press, Nancy (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 2006).Google Scholar
7.Plomin, , et al., op cit.Google Scholar
8.Singh, Shiva, Castellani, C. A., and O'Reilly, R. L., “Copy number variation showers in schizophrenia: an emerging hypothesis,” Molecular Psychiatry 2009, 14: 356–Google Scholar
9.Caspi, Avshalom, Williams, Benjamin, Kim-Cohen, Julia, Craig, Ian W., Milne, Barry J., Poulton, Richie, Schalkwyk, Leonard C., Taylor, Alan, Werts, Helen, and Moffitt, Terrie E., “Moderation of breastfeeding effects on the IQ by genetic variation in fatty acid metabolism,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2007, 104(47): 18860–18865.Google Scholar
10.May, Werner, Deutscher National-Katechismus, 2nd ed. (Breslau: Verlag von Heinrich Handel, 1934), pp. 22–26. Translated by Randall Bytwerk: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/catech.htmGoogle Scholar