An interesting discussion of some reactions to Pinker’s recent op-ed about the role of bioethics can be found here. (image: books)
Editor
David Boonin (Colorado)Advisory Board
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Brown)
Neera Badhwar (Oklahoma)
Francis Beckwith (Baylor)
David Benatar (Cape Town)
Elizabeth Brake (Arizona State)
John Corvino (Wayne State)
Robert George (Princeton)
Lori Gruen (Wesleyan)
Dale Jamieson (NYU)
Christopher Kaczor (Loyola Marymount)
Eva Feder Kittay (Stony Brook)
Eric Mack (Tulane)
Elinor Mason (Edinburgh)
Jan Narveson (Waterloo)
Tommie Shelby (Harvard)
Nancy Sherman (Georgetown)
Saul Smilansky (Haifa)
Bonnie Steinbock (SUNY Albany)
Heather Widdows (Birmingham)Partner Journals
note for contributors
Information about submitting material to What's Wrong? can be found here.search this site
-
follow us on facebook
What's Wrong? 
My problem with Pinker’s op-ed piece is this inflammatory bit: “… the primary moral goal for today’s bioethics can be summarized in a single sentence. Get out of the way.”
That assumes that all of bioethics is concerned only with deterring research, which is as clearly false as the assumption that psychology is concerned only with Freudian analysis. No one would argue that, because Freudian analysis is bunk, the primary moral goal for today’s psychology can be summarized in a single sentence. (Get out of the way.)
Pinker is almost certainly right in criticizing bioethicists who are against CRIPSER-Cas9, but in criticizing an entire discipline he paints with (way, way) too broad a brush.
LikeLike