Introduction to Happiness
Dan Turton
PHIL106 - 2008
My Goal Today

Get you to believe two things:

1) Happiness is real

2) Happiness is good
Are you Happy?

A simple and a complicated question

How we go about answering it depends on
what we take ‘happiness’ to mean

Or, it depends on how the question is asked
How Can I Find Out if You Are
Happy?

How are you feeling right now (from 1 to 7)?


All things considered, how happy are you
these days (from 1 to 7)?


1= very bad, 4= OK, 7= very good
1= very unhappy, 4= OK, 7= very happy
On the whole, how good do you think your
life is (from 1 to 7)?

1= very bad, 4= OK, 7= very good
How Can You Find Out if You Are
Happy? (So You Can Answer)

How are you feeling right now (from 1 to 7)?


All things considered, how happy are you
these days (from 1 to 7)?


Introspection
Introspection, comparative judgement
On the whole, how good do you think your
life is (from 1 to 7)?

Introspection, comparative judgement, relative
to conception of ‘the good life’
Three Levels of Happiness

Nettle (in the course readings) groups
happiness into three different types or levels
Level One Happiness:
Feeling Happy in the Moment

How are you feeling right now?


Introspection
Level One Happiness (Nettle)
Mood
 Pleasure
 Joy
 Absence of pain and suffering (negative
feelings)

 Fear, Anger,
Sadness, Disgust, Pain
Level One Happiness:
Feeling Happy in the Moment
Is there really such a
thing?
 How good are we at
getting it right?

Introspection
 Smiling.
 Brain scans


How good is it to
have?
Level Two Happiness:
Judging Your Happiness

All things considered, how happy are you
these days?


Introspection, comparative judgement
Level Two Happiness (Nettle)
Total net Level One happiness
 Well-being
 Satisfaction
 Judgement about feelings


Can be distorted by biased judgements
Level Two Happiness:
Judging Your Happiness
Is there really such a
thing?
 How good are we at
getting it right?

Appraisal biases
 Aspirational biases


How good is it to
have?
Level Three Happiness:
Thinking You Have a Good Life

On the whole, how good do you think your
life is?


Introspection, comparative judgement, relative
to conception of ‘the good life’
Level Three Happiness (Nettle)
Eudaimonia
 Fulfilling potential
 Quality of life


Doesn’t always require Level 1 or 2
happiness
Level Three Happiness:
Thinking You Have a Good Life

Is there really such
a thing?
Subjectively: yes
 Objectively:
interesting question

How good are we at
getting it right?
 How good is it to
have?

Happiness ‘Continuum’
Level 1
-
-
-
Momentary
feelings
Mood
Pleasure or
joy
Not suffering
Level 2
-
-
-
Judgements
about feelings
Net level 1
happiness
Well-being
satisfaction
Level 3
-
-
Holistic
evaluation of
value of life
Flourishing
Needn’t include
happiness
More emotional, sensual, and reliable
More cognitive, moral, and easily biased
Next Two Weeks

Level One & Two Happiness, enjoying and
being satisfied with your life, is what we will
be mainly discussing over the next 2 weeks

Happiness and Advertising

Happiness and Bioethics
Happiness & Advertising 1
Dan Turton
Happiness ‘Continuum’
Level 1
-
-
-
Momentary
feelings
Mood
Pleasure or
joy
Not suffering
Level 2
-
-
-
Judgements
about feelings
Net level 1
happiness
Well-being
satisfaction
Level 3
-
-
Holistic
evaluation of
value of life
Flourishing
Needn’t include
happiness
More emotional, sensual, and reliable
More cognitive, moral, and easily biased
Today

Start addressing the question:

Is advertising immoral?

An explanation of advertising

A defense of advertising

Setting up some of the moral issues
Advertising is…

Communication from a specific source that
intends to inform and influence the
audience so that they believe something
and/or behave in a certain way

It is usually:
Persuading people to purchase a brand/product
 Paid for
 Using mass media

Advertising might also be…

Rosser Reeves

Manager of a
successful advertising
company
While holding up two
coins:
 “[Making] you think
that this quarter is
more valuable than
that one”

The Role of Advertising

Advertising supports marketing and business
function.

A modern business model:





Perform consumer research
Develop new product based on research
Advertise product
Sell product
Importantly, both the business and the
consumers are thought to benefit from this
The Benefits of Advertising

Advertising helps consumers
decide what to buy




Informs about the existence of new
products
Informs about new uses for existing
products
Informs about differences between
products
Advertising provides incentives to:


Make differentiated products, and
Innovative products
The Benefits of Advertising 2
Advertising is
entertainment
 Many ads are:

Funny
 Interesting
 Artistic
 Appealing in
other ways

The Benefits of Advertising 3

Advertising is good for the economy
It is a huge industry
 It employs a lot of people
 It stimulates economic growth by connecting
more of consumers needs and wants with
solutions


Economic growth is good

Means you can get more things you want
The Benefits of Advertising 3

Advertising is good for the economy
It is a huge industry
 It employs a lot of people
 It stimulates economic growth by connecting
more of consumers needs and wants with
solutions


Economic growth is good

Means you can get more things you want
The Benefits of Advertising 4



Winston Churchill:
“Advertising nourishes
the consuming power of
men. It creates wants
for a better standard of
living… It spurs
individual exertion and
greater production.”
Advertising improves
our well-being
So, What’s Wrong with Advertising?

Apparently, advertising deceives people
into buying things that they don’t really
need
Apparently, advertising lies, deceives and
misleads
 Apparently, advertising makes people think
they need things that they shouldn’t even
want

Advertising Doesn’t Lie

Reasons why advertisers don’t lie

Misleading ads are reported and removed from
circulation
 ASA:
“Truthful Presentation - Advertisements should
not contain any statement or visual presentation or
create an overall impression which directly or by
implication, omission, ambiguity or exaggerated
claim is misleading or deceptive, is likely to deceive
or mislead the consumer, makes false and
misleading representation, abuses the trust of the
consumer or exploits his/her lack of experience or
knowledge. (Obvious hyperbole, identifiable as such,
is not considered to be misleading).”
Advertising Doesn’t Lie

Reasons why advertisers don’t lie
Misleading ads are reported and removed
from circulation
 Lies about product quality are soon
discovered, making the lying company go out
of business
 Really important product categories have extra
regulations to prevent lying
 Advertisers don’t want to tarnish the reputation
of advertising generally

Advertising Doesn’t Make Us Buy
Things We Don’t Need
Advertising never forces anyone to do
anything
 Advertising does influence our purchase
decisions (at least it intends to)

But what is wrong with that?
 Advertising can’t encourage you to want
something you really don’t need
 Advertising can only help you fulfill wants and
needs you already have

Should Advertising be Allowed to
Help Us Fulfill Our Wants?
Should we stop people from helping others
to fulfill their wants?
 Depends on the wants…

Some things we want are bad for others
 Some things we want are bad for ourselves

Should Advertising Help Us Fulfill
Our Wants?

Sure, people shouldn’t be encouraged to harm
others but…



What is better, freedom or having the government
protect us from our own wants?
Why shouldn’t I be able to do whatever I want with
my money (without hurting others)?


Who should decide what we should and shouldn’t want
(for our own good)?
Consumer Sovereignty: Surely I have that right!
Where do we draw the line?
Summary

Advertising is good because:






It helps consumers decide what to buy
It provides incentives for innovation
At least some of it is entertaining
Its good for the economy
It allows us to improve our lives (as we see fit) by
helping us to satisfy our wants and needs
Busting the myths about advertising:


Advertising does not lie or deceive
Advertising cannot make people buy things they don’t
want
Happiness & Advertising 2
(Part 1)
Dan Turton
Last Time

Advertising is good because:






It helps consumers decide what to buy
It provides incentives for innovation
At least some of it is entertaining
Its good for the economy
It allows us to improve our lives (as we see fit) by
helping us to satisfy our wants and needs
Busting the myths about advertising:


Advertising does not lie or deceive
Advertising cannot make people buy things they don’t
want
Today

Clive Hamilton's argument that advertising
is immoral and should be banned

The advertisers argument about how
advertising helps us is flawed

Advertising also makes us unhappy (Next
time)
Problem: Margin of Discontent
Gap between what we have and what we
want
Hamilton mentions two solutions:
Economic growth solution:


1)
•
“People satisfy their wants by increasing their
possessions, thus becoming happier”
‘Sages’ solution:
2)
•
“Give up wanting”
Neo-Liberal Argument
(Roughly According to Hamilton)
Reducing the margin of discontent makes
people happier
2) Economic growth helps consumers to reduce
their margin of discontent
3) Advertising encourages economic growth
4) Advertising helps consumers to make better
decisions about how to reduce the margin of
discontent
c) Therefore, advertising helps make people
happier
1)
Hamilton’s Refutation of the NeoLiberal Argument

More $$ (economic growth) does not
make us happier


Therefore, either P1 or P2 is false
Advertising does not help consumers to
make better decisions about how to
reduce the margin of discontent

Therefore, P4 is false
Does $$ Make Us Happy?
1)
2)
Reducing the margin of discontent makes
people happier
Economic growth helps consumers to reduce
their margin of discontent

If 1. and 2. are both true then why have
we gotten richer but not happier?

Evidence?
Materialism Doesn’t Pay
Very High
Adaptation


Lottery winners return to pretty much the
same level of happiness after 1 year
The more we have:



The more we want and
The more we think we need
Evidence?
So, Does $$ Make Us Happy?

So, unless you are materialistic, more $$ makes
very little difference to our happiness – much
less than:



A rewarding job
A loving relationship
Many more things

But materialistic people seem to have a pretty
strange idea of happiness

Having said all this… who would not want to win
lotto?
Possible Neo-Liberal Response
(Consumer Sovereignty)

Remember Consumer Sovereignty?



Regardless of happiness, we have a right to
do what we want with our money
Economic growth gives people more
freedom to choose whatever they wish to
do with their lives and their money
Without advertising consumers would find
it very difficult to exercise this freedom
Hamilton Fights Back

Advertisers claim to be helping consumers
to freely choose how to best satisfy their
needs and wants – but this is false!



Consumers do not freely choose between
products because advertising manipulates our
preferences – (Consumer Sovereignty is a
myth)
More choice doesn’t help us satisfy our needs
and wants
Therefore, P4 is false
Consumer Sovereignty is a Myth!




Consumers do not freely choose between
products because advertising manipulates
our preferences
Our preferences are formed inside, not
outside, of the marketplace
Indeed, consumers values, goals and
personal identities are all formed inside
the marketplace!
Evidence?
The Abundance of Real Choice is a
Myth



The abundance of choices advertising
provides are limited to meaningless
choices between variations of things that
we didn’t need in the first place
“Most advertising, unfortunately, is
devoted to an attempt to build up…
irrational preferences for certain brands…
to persuade consumers [to] buy Bumpo
rather than Bango” – Prof. Boulding
Evidence?
Coke vs. Pepsi
How Well Did Hamilton Fight Back?


Advertisers claim to be helping consumers
to freely choose how to best satisfy their
needs and wants
Hamilton claims that:


Advertising coerces consumers into satisfying
the greedy financial wants of businesses, not
their own wants or needs
Advertising doesn’t provide more real choice,
so it doesn’t help consumers choose what
they really want
Neo-Liberal Argument
(Roughly According to Hamilton)
Reducing the margin of discontent makes
people happier
2) Economic growth helps consumers to reduce
their margin of discontent
3) Advertising encourages economic growth
4) Advertising helps consumers to make better
decisions about how to reduce the margin of
discontent
c) Therefore, advertising helps make people
happier
1)
Summary – Is Advertising Immoral?

Advertisers would say they help everyone
by:
Helping us close the margin of discontent
 Raising the standard of living
 Helping us to exercise our consumer
sovereignty and our personal choices about
how to live


Hamilton says that these claims are false
Next Week

Happiness and Advertising 2 (Part 2)

Hamilton’s argument that advertising makes us
unhappy

Happiness and Bioethics

What exactly should we be allowed to do to
make our children happy?
Happiness & Advertising 2
(Part 2)
PHIL 106 – 2008
Dan Turton
Today

Clive Hamilton's argument that advertising
is immoral and should be banned

Advertising also makes us unhappy

Then intro to science behind happiness &
Biotech
Hamilton’s Argument that
Advertising Makes Us Unhappy
1)
2)
3)
c)
The margin of discontent is a source of
unhappiness
Advertising perpetuates the margin of
discontent by making us feel dissatisfied
with our lives
Therefore, advertising encourages us to
be unhappy and dissatisfied with our lives
Therefore, advertising is immoral and
should be banned
Does Advertising Make Us
Dissatisfied?

Advertisers and their critics both agree
that advertising influences consumers…


But, to what extent does it do it? And,
How does it do it?
How Much Does Advertising
Influence Us?

Advertising companies are in the funny
position of:



Having to tell their clients that they can
influence consumers very strongly. While,
Having to tell consumer rights groups that
they have very little influence on consumers
Anyone who thinks that advertising
doesn’t affect them is wrong
Does Advertising Make Us
Dissatisfied?

Remember Winston Churchill’s quote…



He thought advertising was good because it made
people strive for a higher standard of living… but how
did it do that?
Maybe by making everyone feel dissatisfied with
what they have at the moment by showing them
something ‘better’
Never more so than with our prime biological
motivators (for getting a good mate/s)…



Status for men (or more directly; just getting women).
Beauty (sexiness) for women.
Real beauty for women.
Brand vs. Company Integrity
Crazy that some companies/brands
advertise in a much more moral manner
than others…. right?
 Wrong (In this case anyway) !

Does Advertising Really Make Us
Dissatisfied?



Advertising either helps us solve our
existing dissatisfactions, or
Advertising constantly provides reasons to
be dissatisfied and then helps us
momentarily ‘solve’ them… and then tries
to make us dissatisfied again!
Hamilton thinks it’s the second option here
Summary – Is Advertising Immoral?

Advertisers would say they help everyone
by:




Helping us close the margin of discontent
Raising the standard of living
Helping us to exercise our consumer sovereignty and
our personal choices about how to live
Hamilton says that advertising is immoral
because:


It doesn’t make us happier like they claim it does, and
It coerces us into a constant state of dissatisfaction
Find Out More

The perils of consumerism and what to do
about it:


See what the anti-advertising community is
up to (and trying to sell to you):


http://www.storyofstuff.com/
http://www.adbusters.org/home/
Don’t worry though! Find out how
advertising is self-regulated in New
Zealand

http://www.asa.co.nz/
Do More

Let the government know what you think
about how advertising is regulated:
tmallard@ministers.govt.nz
 TEL (04) 470 6557
 Office of Trevor Mallard, Parliament Buildings,
Wellington

Happiness and
Biotechnology 1
PHIL 106 – 2008
Dan Turton
Teaser Questions

If you had children, what would you want
their lives to be like?

What would you be willing to do to try and
secure happiness for your children?
Rest of Today

The science behind
IVF = In Vitro Fertilisation
 PGD = Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis
 GE = Genetic Engineering
 DNA = Deoxyribonucleic acid
 Happiness

IVF









In vitro Fertilisation.
About 10 eggs extracted
Mixed with sperm
Cultivated for 3 days
Put on ice
Embryos have about 25% chance
Either 1, 2, or 3 embryos inserted at a time until
successful pregnancy achieved
Thought to be pretty safe for child and mother
Caused moral debate in 1970s
PGD - Explained
Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis.
 During IVF, after 3 days
 1 of the 8 cells removed
 Genetic tests are run on the DNA in the cell
 The tests commonly look for chromosomal
abnormalities that are markers for various
diseases

Uses for PGD

Current uses of PGD - mainly therapeutic

Nearly 1000 heritable diseases
 Down

Disease is sometimes selected for!
 E.g.


Syndrome, Huntington’s Disease etc
Deafness
Family balancing
Possible future uses of PGD - enhancement

Smarter, stronger, taller… even happier
GE

Germline Genetic Engineering.

DNA changes that can be passed on to future
generations
During IVF, just after egg is fertilised and
before cell division
 Hormone or virus or artificial chromosome
added – which changes the DNA in all
future cells
 Potential uses of GE: designer babies

DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid
 Human Genome Project


Complete knowledge of the DNA that encodes
human life achieved in 2003
Genetics



Genes have a big
role to play in our
phenotypes
(measurable traits)
Genes are
inherited from
parents
Developmental
instructions (what
to do given certain
environmental
cues)
Fallacy: Genetic Determinism

Genes don’t dictate phenotype


Interactionism


(Genes never 100% guarantee that the
organism will develop to exhibit one particular
trait)
Genes always interact with the environment to
create the phenotype
Do our genes guarantee that we will never
have a trunk?
Science and Happiness




Happiness is a
biological reality
Any state of mind is a
biological state of
mind
Certain
neurotransmitters
have been implicated
as potential
components of
happiness
Remember the brain
scans
Happiness ‘Set Point’
Are some of your friends generally happier
or sadder than you?
 Emerging consensus that each person has
a happiness set point, with moods that
fluctuate around it
Happiness

Time
Genetics and Happiness
General consensus that 50% of the
happiness set point is ‘determined’ by our
genes
 How happy (on average) we are likely to be
depends on the interaction of our genes
and the environment


and each contributes a similar amount to our
happiness set point
Genetics and Happiness





How do they work it out?
More detail in reading (see Sober’s 4 steps)
Twin studies
Longitudinal tests for causal relationships
between specific genes and the likelihood of
certain traits appearing under certain
environmental conditions
If/when this can be done for happiness, then we
can use PGD to screen for babies that are more
likely to be happy
Summary
Average Level 2 Happiness seems to be
50% genetic.
 If we can isolate the genes doing the work
here, then…
 IVF, PGD and GE might be used to choose
embryos with genes that make it more likely
to have a higher happiness set point under
normal conditions
 Imagine it’s possible… Should we do it??

Next Time

Michael Sandel’s argument for why we
shouldn’t enhance our children in this way
Happiness and
Biotechnology 2
Dan Turton
Last Time
How we might be able to genetically screen
IVF embryos (and or GE them) to be more
likely to become happy people
Happiness

Time
Today
Michael Sandel’s
argument
 PGD/GE of children
for enhancement
purposes is morally
wrong

Today: Sandel’s Article
A weaker objection that Sandel rules out
 The ethic of giftedness
 Moulding and beholding
 Where to draw the line

A Weaker Objection to
Enhancement

It allows parents to “usurp the autonomy of
the child they design”
Children don’t have autonomy over their genes,
or much of their early development
 Complete usurpation of a child’s autonomy
implies genetic determinism
 PGD (without GE) doesn’t usurp anyone’s
autonomy as such

The Ethic of Giftedness
“To appreciate children as gifts is to accept
them as they come, not as objects of our
design, or products of our will, or
instruments of our ambition”
 Parental love should not be contingent on
the attributes of the child
 They should be open to the “unbidden”
 Not the same for friend/spouse choice


Which is why being a parent is so special
The Problem with Enhancing
“The deepest moral objection to
enhancement lies less in the perfection it
seeks than in the human disposition it
expresses and promotes.”
 These kinds of enhancement encourage
“hubris” in parents, making them less
sympathetic and open to their children
 “Disfigures the [ideal?] relation between
parent and child”

Moulding and Beholding
How we should best treat children as
valuable gifts?
 We need to find the right balance between:

Moulding and beholding, or
 Transforming love and accepting love

Moulding/Transforming Love

Bad moulding:


Do not enhance your child beyond his or her
natural capacities because this will degrade the
parent-child relationship and entrench attitudes
at odds with the norm of unconditional love
Good moulding:

Transform your child if they are ill or diseased
because healing a sick or injured child permits
his or her natural capacities to flourish (without
overriding them)
Healing vs. Enhancing





Medicine is OK because it has the goal of
restoring normal natural human functions
But both healing and enhancing have the same
purpose – to maximise the child’s chances of
success in life
No, the purpose of healing is to restore health –
health being the target state, a good in itself
Health (like being morally good) is one of the
fundamental elements required for human
flourishing
Health can be improved or worsened but it cannot
be maximised
Beholding/Accepting Love

Bad beholding:
Do not be too accepting
 Do not fail to “cultivate… (help them discover
and develop their talents and gifts)” your
children because you have “a duty to promote
[your] child’s excellence.”


Good beholding:

Love them for who they are and who they have
the natural potential to be
Where is the line?
Too Molding
-
-
Using PGD
and/or GE to
enhance
Hyperparenting
Eugenics
Just Right
-
-
-
Too Beholding
Healing injury
and illness
Using PGD to
avoid diseases
Providing good
education
“Transforming love, without
accepting love, badgers
and finally rejects.”
-
Never or rarely
pushing or
encouraging
your child to
grow or learn
“Accepting love, without
transforming love, slides
into indulgence and
finally neglects.”
Closer Look at Sandel’s Argument





Note the purpose of being a good parent is to
allow and encourage your children to flourish
(fulfill their natural potential)
What is it for a human to flourish?
What is different about providing good education
and nutrition to a child and using PGD to increase
the chance of having a happy child?
If it was discovered that vitamin H made us
happier, would you give some to your child?
Is PGD for happiness like hyper-parenting or like
good parenting (encouraging and allowing your
children to flourish)?
Summary
Sandel thinks that the use of PGD and or
GE to enhance our children is morally
wrong because:
 It damages the parent-child relationship
 It encourages parents to be arrogant
 It leads to badgering and finally rejection of
children
 Which, all combined, doesn’t let the child
flourish – fulfill its natural potential

Next Time
John Robertson’s framework for seeing if
uses of PGD are moral or not (applied to
happiness)
 Julian Savulescu’s argument for why it is
morally mandatory for us to enhance our
children

Happiness and
Biotechnology 3
PHIL 106 – 2008
Dan Turton
Last Time





Sandel thinks that the use of PGD and or GE to
enhance our children is morally wrong because:
It damages the parent-child relationship
It leads to badgering and finally rejection
Which doesn’t let the child flourish – fulfill its
natural potential
But could PGD and GE help a child fulfill its
potential?
Today


John Robertson’s
framework for
assessing the morality
of using PGD – applied
to happiness
Julian Savulescu’s
argument for why it is
morally mandatory for
us to enhance our
children
Robertson



The science required for PGD
for happiness is not that close
but it might be possible
Considers some moral
objections to PGD and finds
non of them convincing
Proposes a framework for
testing whether it would be
moral to use PGD to screen for
certain dispositions/traits
Embryo Rights
c)
Embryos are persons with rights (like
grown ups)
PGD creates embryos and then kills most
of them unnecessarily
It is morally wrong to kill people
unnecessarily
Therefore, it is morally wrong to use PGD

3-day old embryos don’t have rights
1)
2)
3)
Eugenics
1)
2)
c)


PGD is a form of eugenics because it is trying to
improve the gene-pool by removing ‘weaker’
specimens
Eugenics is morally wrong (e.g. Nazis)
Therefore, it is morally wrong to use PGD
Coercive eugenics (killing and sterilsing people
who didn’t want to be) is morally wrong…
But its not clear that PGD is coercive eugenics
Stigmatisation
1)
2)
3)
c)


PGD is all about avoiding having a disabled child
Focusing on and promoting the idea that ‘having
a disability is so terrible’ stigmatises people with
disabilities
Stigmatising people with disabilities is morally
wrong
Therefore, it is morally wrong to use PGD
Stigmatising the disabled is wrong and should be
avoided as much as possible…
But the benefits that might come from PGD seem
to outweigh the cost of a bit of stigmatisation
Un-Openness to the Unbidden
1)
2)
3)
c)
Using PGD to select an ‘enhanced’ embryo
encourages parents not treat the resulting
children as valuable unbidden gifts
Not treating children as valuable unbidden gifts
degrades the parent-child relationship
It is immoral to encourage the degradation of the
parent-child relationship
Therefore, it is morally wrong to use PGD to
select an ‘enhanced’ embryo

Selection of embryos using PGD is just like
selecting a good mate

Should we choose our mates by random chance?
Welfare of the Offspring
1)
2)
3)
c)


PGD will ‘commodify’ embryos, which will
encourage parents to have undue expectations of
how their children should develop
When parents have undue expectations for their
children it is bad for their children’s welfare
Unnecessarily decreasing children’s welfare is
morally wrong
Therefore, it is morally wrong to use PGD
Some parents will be like this regardless of if they
have access to PGD
PGD isn’t morally bad, some parents are morally
bad
Robertson’s PGD Framework
Two questions/tests to see if a new use for
PGD should be allowed:
 “Are parents making the type of decision
that falls within common understanding of
procreative liberty?” and
 “If they are, would those decisions impose
harm or burdens on others that justify
discouraging or barring them?”

Procreative Liberty
Freedom from interference with procreative
matters… including:
 The freedom to decide to reproduce or not
reproduce
 Some choice over the genetic make up of
your prospective children – (mate selection)

Passing Test #1

“Are parents making the type of decision that falls
within common understanding of procreative
liberty?”


Yes = pass (go on to the second test)


These kinds of decisions often have the goal of rearing
healthy offspring
E.g. Using PGD to select a non-genetically diseased
embryo = Avoiding mating with someone with an
inherited disease
No = fail (go home and try to do it the natural way)

E.g. Using PGD to select a very very genetically
disabled embryo = very unusual procreative behaviour
Passing Test #2

When test #1 is passed, the onus goes to the
person wanting to restrict the parents’ procreative
liberty


“Would those decisions impose harm or burdens
on others that justify discouraging or barring
them?”



They need to provide a good reason for doing so
Note that imposing harm on the offspring with PGD is
hard to do because that particular embryo would not
have been born at all without PGD
Yes = fail (don’t be so greedy)
No = pass (lets book you a PGD appointment!)
Framework in Use – Gender
Selection

PGD for gender variety/family balancing

“Are parents making the type of decision that falls within
common understanding of procreative liberty?”

Yes – it is common to want a certain gender child because of the
different raising experience it offers


“Would those decisions impose harm or burdens on others
that justify discouraging or barring them?”



But it is uncommon to be able to choose the gender!
No – as long as it was for balancing there is no stigmatisation etc.
Robertson’s verdict:
PASS: lets book you a PGD appointment!
Framework in Use – Avoiding
Deafness

PGD for avoiding or deafness

“Are parents making the type of decision that falls within
common understanding of procreative liberty?”

Yes – it is common to want children with normal hearing ability


“Would those decisions impose harm or burdens on others
that justify discouraging or barring them?”

No – the deaf community is not stigmatised because they still have
rights etc.



But it is uncommon to be able to choose the hearing ability!
But perhaps their lives would be worse if there were less deaf people
Robertson’s verdict:
PASS: lets book you a PGD appointment!
Framework in Use – Selecting for
Deafness

PGD for deafness!

“Are parents making the type of decision that falls within
common understanding of procreative liberty?”

Yes – it is common to want a child that can share in your culture


“Would those decisions impose harm or burdens on others
that justify discouraging or barring them?”

No – otherwise the deaf child would not have had a life at all



But it is uncommon to be able to choose deafness!
But we would never allow parents pop a babies eardrums to make them
deaf!
Robertson’s verdict:
PASS: lets book you a PGD appointment!
Problems with the Framework



Is there anything that they wouldn't allow?
The questions/tests are not clear enough
“Are parents making the type of decision that falls
within common understanding of procreative
liberty?”


Robertson seems to think we should have the freedom
to get what we want in terms of type of child, just
because it is common to want it
“Would those decisions impose harm or burdens
on others that justify discouraging or barring
them?”

While the child might not be harmed, would we prefer
the world with the harmed child or the normal child?
Framework in Use – Selecting for
Happiness

PGD for happiness

“Are parents making the type of decision that falls
within common understanding of procreative
liberty?”


“Would those decisions impose harm or burdens on
others that justify discouraging or barring them?”


Yes – it is common to want a child to be happy
No – in fact everyone might benefit from having happy
people around
The verdict?
Summing up Robertson
Procreative liberty, if understood broadly,
puts the onus on the objector to PGD to
show who will be harmed by its use
 Procreative liberty does not allow us to
intentionally kill people though

So, if embryos are people, PGD might still be
immoral
 But there needs to be a robust definition of
‘person’ that gets around objections for this to
work – recall abortion-type arguments

Savulescu


Thinks that some
enhancements that PGD
and/or GE can provide
would make children’s
lives much better,
whatever they chose to
do later in life.
Thinks parents are
morally obliged to provide
these kinds of
enhancements to their
children if they can
Savulescu’s Argument
1)
2)
3)
4)
c)
Some enhancements that PGD and/or GE can
provide are good for children because they
increase their chances for a good life
Parents should do what they can to increase their
children’s chances of having a good life
Therefore, there are some enhancements that
parents should choose for their children
It is morally wrong to stop parents from helping
their children to have better lives (when no one
else is harmed)
Therefore, it is morally wrong to prevent parents
using PGD and/or GE for some enhancements
Summing up Savulescu
Some enhancements that PGD and/or GE
can provide are good for children, no matter
what they choose to do with their lives,
because they increase their chances for a
good life
 Which enhancements?
 Savulescu: memory, empathy
 Presumably happiness too

Summary


The verdicts on using PGD and/or GE to
enhance our children’s happiness
Sandel: morally wrong


Robertson: morally permissible


Because it doesn’t let the child flourish – fulfill
its natural potential (which is what good
parents are supposed to do)
Because procreative liberty includes wanting
a happy child and no one is harmed by it
Savelescu: morally mandatory

Because it will give children a better chance
of living a good life (which is what good
parents are supposed to do)
You Decide
Your verdict on using PGD and/or GE to
enhance our children’s happiness
 Morally wrong? Permissible? or mandatory?

Find Out and Do More

What is the current-ish state of PGD in New
Zealand?


http://www.bioethics.org.nz/downloads/prebirth-testing.pdf
What might the future hold for New
Zealand’s bioethical regulations and how
can I have my say?
http://www.bioethics.org.nz/
 Find out when the next public forum is and go!

Next Time

Global Justice with Ramon Das