Search Results

This article argues that gene editing for the purpose of curing or preventing serious disease can be morally acceptable, even when future children cannot consent, because parents already make many welfare-shaping decisions before children can exercise autonomy. It defends a cautious, regulated approach that permits therapeutic edits while rejecting cosmetic or preference-based genetic control that risks objectifying children, encouraging eugenics, and undermining their future moral personhood.

This article argues that creating AI replicas of the deceased is morally impermissible, even when the person gave prior consent, because it commodifies human identity and reduces moral personhood into a commercial data product. It further contends that digital afterlife systems threaten relational privacy, expose secrets without meaningful agency or context, and risk causing deep psychological and social harm to the living.