Going back to “On Being Genetically “Irresponsible” (Andre, Fleck, Tomlinson 2000) one of the key arguments revolves around the theory that responsibility is considered somehow a character attribute rather than a form of action, and therefor accusing someone for being irresponsible is a critique of their personality rather than their behaviour.
“It is not just an evaluation of an action, but an attack on a person, on someone’s character and moral competence. The charge of “irresponsible” is thus insulting in a way that a charge of wrongdoing is not. When it is made too easily it subverts rather than enhances good public discussion.”
Novas and Rose (2000: 504) argue that genetic testing creates ‘new categories of persons’; individuals who have an obligation to actively manage the self in the light of the knowledge revealed by genetic tests. According to this view, the genetic subject is a consumer of genetic tests, a maker of choices, a taker of decisions, an active subject. (Hallowell)
The blame of character work as opposed to event work in causing genetic mutation to spread, is in sharp contrast to the fatalistic approach and puts the blame on the “irresponsible” individual. Him of the new category.
Post a Comment