Dignity only for humans? A controversy

The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature

“…Second, it was argued that genome editing could be an affront to an animal's dignity [36,96] or could prevent the animal from living according to its instincts [111]. On the other hand, it was argued that the Kantian concept of dignity cannot be applied to animals, for it is tied to prerequisite conditions, such as the ability to exert self-determination or to be a moral agent, that animals do not possess [113]. Likewise, it was argued that it does not make sense to propose that genome editing could impinge on an animal's dignity and thereby harm that animal even if its welfare is improved, because what is good for an individual must in some way resonate with that individual [78].…”

“…re breaching the sanctity of the lives of mosquitoes by making them go extinct: neither existing mosquitoes nor the species holistically bear a significant degree of moral status 1 [101] gene drives re impinging on an animal's dignity by making them serve better as objects for human use: the Kantian concept of dignity cannot be applied to animals, for this concept is tied to prerequisite conditions that animals do not possess 1 [113] genetic engineering re use to modify an animal's telos or nature: this could be morally acceptable if the animals are made less miserable or happier as one does not morally wrong the telos by changing it; only individuals can be wronged 1 [121] genetic engineering could be used to prevent additional violations to animal rights, which would be preferable to the status quo, even on an account that considers raising animals for human consumption impermissible 1 [78] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR) re impinging on an animal's integrity or dignity and thereby harming it even if welfare is improved: what is good for an individual must in some way resonate with that individual; what is good for it cannot diverge from its welfare 1 [78] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR) re impact on the 'telos' of an animal: the animal's telos can still be respected if it is provided with an environment that fits its altered genetic predispositions 1 [78] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR) re impact on the 'telos' of an animal: the idea that there is some 'true essence' of a species is mistaken as behaviours and tendencies change over time, making it hard to see why this should be seen as morally problematic [6,7,20,28,34,35,82,83,106,108,126,139,143] gene drives could cross moral limits by exceeding the extent to which humans breach natural boundaries or act out of hubris; nature/life cannot be completely manufactured or planned and we ought to acknowledge their unpredictability 4 [12,36,115,117] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR, synthetic biology) could constitute an unnatural interference with nature 2 [100,115] various (ZFNs, TALEN, CRISPR); genetic modification could be used to revive extinct species, for which there may no longer be a niche 2…”

Gene drive technologies: navigating the ethical landscape

“…Increase genetic gain in breeding programs (10) Increase economic productivity in animal farming Change reproductive behavior of wild animals that give birth to large numbers of offspring, many of whom do not survive to adulthood, by decreasing the number of offspring they produce per cycle (26) Prevent wild animal suffering Veterinary medicine or animal sciences (10,11,19,21,34,57,59,(68)(69)(70)72,74,75,80,82,90,92,97,101,103,108,113,114,116,124,125,(128)(129)(130)133) Ethics (6,20,22,23,(28)(29)(30)(31)43,48,51,52,78,81,91,93,107,111,135,141) Philosophy (9,26,40,…”

“…On the other hand, it was argued that the Kantian concept of dignity cannot be applied to animals, for it is tied to prerequisite conditions, such as the ability to exert selfdetermination or to be a moral agent, that animals do not possess (141). Likewise, it was argued that it does not make sense to propose that genome editing could impinge on an animal's dignity and thereby harm that animal even if its welfare is improved, because what is good for an individual must in some way resonate with that individual (107).…”