Review article of David McPherson, The Virtues of Limits (Oxford, 2022).

Abstract. Twenty years have now passed since Jürgen Habermas published his only work on bioethics. This article has three main aims. First, to offer a comprehensive re-evaluation of The Future of Human Nature in light of the many critiques made of it. Second, to undertake a reconstruction of certain elements of the work. Third, to forge a ‘Habermasian perspective’ that draws not only from The Future of Human Nature but also from his influential theories, including those of modernity, social evolution, (...) and his discourse theory of ethics. In The Future of Human Nature, Habermas opposes the selection and enhancement of genetic traits for non-therapeutic purposes, arguing that such practices undermine autonomy and, in turn, ‘humanity’s ethical self-understanding.’ Although subject to vociferous critique, I argue that the argument from autonomy holds promise. However, for it to serve the role Habermas envisions, the impact of new genetic technologies on norms of socialization – specifically those related to individuation – must be brought to the fore. I reframe the argument by focusing on how processes of self-formation in future societies could differ radically from those in contemporary society. I also propose a further important shift: limiting objections to genetic technologies on the grounds of autonomy narrows the scope of what a Habermasian approach to normatively evaluating these technologies might offer. Departing from his original stance, the Habermasian perspective outlined here advocates a precautionary societal approach informed by key insights from his social and normative theories. (shrink)

One of the central assertions in Anne Barnhill and Matteo Bonotti’s Healthy Eating Policy and Political Philosophy: A Public Reason Approach is that 'food and eating have many kinds of value for individuals, families, and communities', and this value 'can be both positive and negative'. One implication of this view is that healthy eating may have significant disvalue for some eaters while unhealthy eating may be highly valuable. Thus, healthy eating interventions may result in a significant loss of value or (...) increase in disvalue in eaters’ lives. The authors contend that public health policymakers should take this into account, arguing that a policy likely to result in significant losses of value or increases in disvalue is unjustifiable. In this paper, I argue that Barnhill and Bonotti’s values pluralism about food and eating offers a welcome departure from three common oversimplifications of the ethical importance of food and eating in human life: an ‘all about paternalism’ view, a healthist view, and a hedonistic view. This values pluralism enriches and enhances our understandings and normative assessments of ‘good food’ and ‘good eating’, and makes space to recognize a wider range of ‘good eaters’ than any of these oversimplifications can accommodate. This is important because being identified and treated as a ‘bad eater’ can have morally significant consequences, including damage to the eater’s agency. Thus, beyond its importance for food policy, it would be beneficial for a wide range of conversations about food and eating to adopt a values pluralist perspective. However, since some value derives from sources – such as false beliefs or oppressive identities – that may not be worthy of respect, more needs to be said about whether all value and disvalue should be treated as equivalent before this perspective can be responsibly deployed in any context. -/- . (shrink)