@article{CAMPBELL_2016, title={Daoism and Liberal Eugenics: Response to Chai}, volume={14}, url={https://ejournals.lib.hkbu.edu.hk/index.php/ijccpm/article/view/1623}, DOI={10.24112/ijccpm.141623}, abstractNote={<p><b>LANGUAGE NOTE</b> | Document text in English</p><p>In this paper, I respond to David Chai’s attempt to buttress Jürgen Habermas’s critique of genetic enhancement with Daoist metaphysics. I argue that this attempt is unsuccessful because Habermas’s position begins with the conviction that ethical prescriptions cannot be derived from metaphysical truths. I then consider whether Daoist metaphysics on its own might provide grounds for rejecting enhancement. I suggest not. To support this, I present a dilemma for Daoist critiques of enhancement: either Daoism rules out both therapy and enhancement, in which case it is too demanding, or it rules out neither therapy nor enhancement, in which case it is too permissive.</p><p><b>DOWNLOAD HISTORY</b> | This article has been downloaded 70 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.</p>}, number={2}, journal={International Journal of Chinese & Comparative Philosophy of Medicine}, author={CAMPBELL, Michael}, year={2016}, month={Jan.}, pages={125–130} }