A Common Front between Habermas and Zhuangzi?
LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese; abstract in English only.
Chai attempts to demonstrate how Zhuangzi can be used to supplement Habermas’s arguments against liberal eugenics. He argues that both Habermas and Zhuangzi would view liberal eugenics as falling on the wrong side of the natural/artificial divide. It is debatable whether his interpretation of Zhuangzi as both fatalist and epistemically modest suits this conclusion. In particular, it is doubtful that someone who is suspicious of whether humans can ever have knowledge of nature would be entitled to assert that liberal eugenics is unnatural. Even if this position is possible, it would be one that equally rejects Habermas. Habermas attempts to isolate genetic engineering from acceptable interventions in a person’s life. Daoism, to the extent that it rejects liberal eugenics, would equally view the latter kinds of interventions as misguided. Chai’s Daoist ethics of human enhancement, therefore, could hardly be used to supplement Habermas’s position.
DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 54 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2016 International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The CC BY-NC 4.0 license permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and not used for commercial purposes. Copyright on any article is retained by the author(s) and the publisher(s).