Common sense morality and legislations around the world ascribe normative relevance to biological connections between parents and children. Procreators who meet a modest standard of parental competence are believed to have a right to rear the children they brought into the world. I explore various attempts to justify this belief and find most of these attempts lacking. I distinguish between two kinds of biological connections between parents and children: the genetic link and the gestational link. I argue that (...) the second can better justify a right to rear. (shrink)

It is widely assumed that there is value in the biological tie between parent and child. An implication of this is that adoption is often considered a less desirable alternative to procreation. This paper offers a philosophical defence of adoptive parenthood as a valuable and authentic form of parenthood. While previous defences have suggested that society’s valorisation of the biological tie is unjustified, I argue herein that the conception of the biological tie that features in (...) the normative discourse on parenthood is too narrowly genocentric. Against this genocentric conception, recent work in the philosophy of biology has emphasised the roles of joint determination, dynamic construction, and extended inheritance in development, which I suggest can substantiate a more inclusive conception of the biological tie. Accordingly, I propose that adoptive parents form a rich variety of biological ties with their children, some of which are as heritable and formative as genetic relatedness. (shrink)

Parenting our biological children is a centrally important matter, but how, if it all, can it be justified? According to a contemporary influential line of thinking, the acquisition by parents of a moral right to parent their biological children should be grounded by appeal to the value of the intimate emotional relationship that gestation facilitates between a newborn and a gestational procreator. I evaluate two arguments in defence of this proposal and argue that both are unconvincing.

This chapter analyses the implications of findings in epigenetics for the ascription of moral responsibility for children. It contrasts shared understandings of procreative responsibility and discusses its extension to include all (individual or collective) actors who influence a child’s gene expression. It also problematizes the focus on biology in this process, using the example of epigenetics as a crossover between social and biological factors that contribute to a child’s life. Epigenetics blurs the boundary between biology and the environment, and (...) thus allows an analysis of contributions to children’s lives that goes beyond classical dualistic categories such as genetic versus environmental or biological versus social. The analysis is undertaken against the broader background of the determination of moral responsibility for children. (shrink)

This article aims to explore the philosophical meaning of pregnancy and maternity in the writ-ings of R. Soloveitchik and Emmanuel Lévinas. They both make a phenomenological enquiry into these phenomena, by looking on the biological aspect and the emotional aspects. R. Solove-itchik suggests a spiritual interpretation concerning the meaning of pregnancy, which is both biological and spiritual. He attempts to differentiate between the natural parenthood and the spiritual parenthood. Lévinas gives us the philosophical observation through the (...) phenomenolog-ical research of pregnancy, motherhood and parenthood. For him, this inquiry may be revealed as an ethical occurrence that demand responsibility. Perhaps this is one of the unique dimensions of modern Jewish philosophy, looking towards the religious texts with modern philosophical method and modern philosophy theories. Reading carefully the biblical story of Genesis on the notion of birth and maternity, raises textual questions and cultural questions. For Lévinas and R. Soloveitchik these questions can open the door to new philosophical inquiry. (shrink)

In recent decades, ethicists have engaged with new developments in human reproductive technologies from a variety of angles. Yet there has been relatively little effort to problematize the concept of reproduction itself. In this paper, we examine the question of what reproduction is and its relationship with biology. We show that reproduction is commonly assumed to entail biological parenthood—an assumption that we term “the biological reproduction paradigm.” Drawing on Sally Haslanger’s analysis of the biological/social division between (...) sex and gender, we suggest that the concept of reproduction is socially constructed, despite its apparently biological nature. In turn, we argue that the supposed necessity of the relationship between reproduction and biological parenthood leads to a situation in which access to a variety of medical, legal, and social goods is constrained on the basis of spurious, inconsistent, and undertheorized assumptions. Finally, we note that, given the socially constructed nature of reproduction, we cannot take it for granted that the term “reproduction” signifies the same thing among different interlocutors and in different contexts. (shrink)

This is my response to a premise-by-premise argument in Anca Gheaus’s “Biological Parenthood: Gestational, Not Genetic.”.

In law and common-sense morality, it is generally assumed that adults who meet a minimum threshold of parental competency have a presumptive right to parent their biological children. But what is the basis of this right? According to one prominent account, the right to parent one’s biological child is best understood as being grounded in an intimate relationship that develops between babies and their birth parents during the process of gestation. This paper identifies three major problems facing this (...) view—the explanatory, adjudicatory, and theoretical problems—and explains how an alternative autonomy-based account is capable of avoiding them. (shrink)

Is Marriage and Having a Family Compulsory in Society? -/- Marriage and family have historically been viewed as essential institutions in many societies, shaping social structures, traditions, and even economies. However, as societies evolve, perspectives on marriage and family have changed. While some still regard them as fundamental aspects of life, others see them as personal choices rather than obligations. The question remains: Is marriage and having a family compulsory in a society? The answer is no, as Individuals today have (...) the freedom to choose their paths based on personal aspirations, financial stability, and societal factors. However, despite this freedom, many young people still face immense pressure to marry, even when they are not yet emotionally or financially prepared. -/- The Traditional View of Marriage and Family -/- In many cultures, marriage has been considered a necessary milestone in life. Historically, it served as a means of ensuring financial security, strengthening social ties, and continuing family lineage. For example, in ancient China, marriage was arranged by families based on social status and economic advantage rather than personal choice. Similarly, in medieval Europe, noble families often arranged marriages to secure alliances and wealth. -/- Even in modern times, some societies still pressure individuals to marry. In India, for example, arranged marriages are still common, with families playing a significant role in selecting a spouse. In some Middle Eastern countries, societal norms strongly encourage marriage, and in some cases, unmarried individuals—especially women—may face social stigma. These cultural perspectives emphasize the importance of marriage not just for personal companionship but as a duty to family and society. -/- Having children is also seen as an obligation in some cultures. In Japan, the declining birth rate has become a concern, leading the government to introduce policies that encourage marriage and childbearing, such as financial incentives and extended parental leave. However, despite these efforts, many young Japanese people choose to remain single or delay marriage due to financial pressures and career aspirations. -/- Pressures That Force Young People into Marriage -/- Despite the increasing acceptance of personal choice in marriage, many young people still feel pressured to marry due to various societal, cultural, and familial factors. -/- 1. Family Expectations and Cultural Norms In many societies, parents and extended family members expect young adults to marry by a certain age. For example, in the Philippines, it is common for relatives to ask young people, “Kailan ka magpapakasal?” (“When will you get married?”) during family gatherings. This social pressure can make individuals feel obligated to marry, even if they are not ready. -/- 2. Religious Beliefs Many religious traditions emphasize marriage as a sacred duty. In some Christian, Muslim, and Hindu communities, staying single for too long may be viewed as undesirable or even sinful. Some religious teachings also discourage premarital relationships, making marriage seem like the only acceptable way to experience companionship and intimacy. -/- 3. Fear of Social Judgment In some cultures, being single for too long is often associated with negative stereotypes. Women, in particular, may be labeled as “old maids” or “leftovers” if they remain unmarried past a certain age. In China, the term “Sheng Nu” (leftover women) is used to describe women over 27 who are still single, putting immense pressure on them to find a husband. Similarly, men who are not married by their 30s may be seen as irresponsible or immature. -/- 4. Economic and Financial Pressures In some societies, marriage is seen as a way to achieve financial security. Young people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds may feel pressured to marry someone who can provide financial stability, even if they are not emotionally prepared for marriage. For example, in some rural parts of Africa and South Asia, early marriages are arranged to provide financial relief to the bride’s family. -/- 5. Peer Pressure Seeing friends and classmates getting married can create a sense of urgency, making individuals feel as though they are “falling behind” in life. In social media-driven cultures, where people frequently post wedding and engagement photos, young adults may feel pressure to conform to the trend, even if they are not ready for marriage. -/- 6. Unplanned Pregnancy In conservative societies, an unplanned pregnancy often leads to marriage due to social expectations and family pressure. In the Philippines, for example, “shotgun weddings” (forced marriages due to pregnancy) are still common, especially among young couples. While this may seem like a solution to social stigma, it often results in marriages that are unstable due to emotional immaturity and financial struggles. -/- Changing Perspectives in Modern Society -/- In contemporary society, marriage and family are increasingly viewed as personal choices rather than obligations. Many individuals prioritize career advancement, personal development, or other life goals. For instance, in Western countries like the United States and Canada, there has been a significant rise in the number of single people who choose to remain unmarried or cohabit without legally formalizing their relationships. Celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, who has remained unmarried despite a long-term relationship, exemplify this shift in societal norms. -/- Additionally, financial stability plays a crucial role in decisions about marriage and children. In urban areas, the rising cost of living, housing, and childcare often discourages young couples from starting a family. For example, in South Korea, the term “Sampo Generation” (meaning “Three-Give-Up Generation”) describes young people who forgo marriage, children, and homeownership due to economic hardships. This phenomenon highlights how financial factors influence personal decisions in modern society. -/- Alternatives to Traditional Family Structures -/- As societies become more accepting of diverse lifestyles, alternative family structures have emerged. Single-parent families, same-sex couples raising children, and individuals choosing to remain child-free are increasingly recognized. For example, in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Denmark, cohabitation without marriage is common, and legal protections are provided for unmarried couples. -/- Another example is the concept of “chosen families,” where people form deep, supportive relationships outside of biological ties. In LGBTQ+ communities, for instance, individuals often build close family-like relationships with friends who provide emotional and financial support. This demonstrates that love, care, and support do not necessarily require legal marriage or biological parenthood. -/- Conclusion -/- Marriage and family remain significant in many cultures, but they are not compulsory in modern society. While traditional expectations still influence many people’s decisions, growing individual freedom allows people to shape their lives based on personal values, financial realities, and career aspirations. However, young people still experience immense pressure to marry due to family expectations, religious beliefs, social stigma, and economic factors. These pressures often lead individuals into marriage before they are truly ready, sometimes resulting in unhappy or unstable relationships. -/- As society continues to evolve, the acceptance of diverse family structures further highlights that fulfillment and happiness are not dependent on marriage or having children. Instead, individuals should have the right to choose whether to marry or remain single without fear of judgment or pressure. Ultimately, personal happiness and well-being should be prioritized over societal expectations. -/- . (shrink)

The institution of the family and its importance have recently received considerable attention from political theorists. Leading views maintain that the institution’s justification is grounded, at least in part, in the non-instrumental value of the parent-child relationship itself. Such views face the challenge of identifying a specific good in the parent-child relationship that can account for how adults acquire parental rights over a particular child—as opposed to general parental rights, which need not warrant a claim to parent one’s biological (...) progeny. I develop a view that meets this challenge. This Project View identifies the pursuit of a parental project as a distinctive non-instrumentally valuable good that provides a justification for the family and whose pursuit is necessary and sufficient for the acquisition of parental rights. This view grounds moral parenthood in a normative relation as opposed to a biological one, supports polyadic forms of parenting, and provides plausible guidance in cases of assisted reproduction. (shrink)

With an increasing number of ways to ‘assist’ reproduction, some bioethicists have started to wonder what it takes to become a genetic parent. It is widely agreed that sharing genes is not enough to substantiate the parent–offspring relation, but what is? Without a better understanding of the concept of reproduction, our thinking about parent–offspring relations and the ethical issues surrounding them risk being unprincipled. Here, I address that problem by offering a principled account of reproduction—the Overlap, Development and Persistence account—which (...) I believe best captures the meaning of ‘genetic parenthood’. (shrink)

It is commonly believed that parents have special duties toward their children—weightier duties than they owe other children. How these duties are acquired, however, is not well understood. This is problematic when claims about parental responsibilities are challenged; for example, when people deny that they are morally responsible for their biological offspring. In this paper I present a theory of the origins of parental responsibilities that can resolve such cases of disputed moral parenthood.

While artificial womb technology is currently being studied for the purpose of improving neonatal care, I contend that this technology ought to be pursued as a means to address the unprecedented rate of unintended pregnancies. But ectogenesis, alongside other emerging reproductive technologies, is problematic insofar as it threatens to disrupt the natural link between procreation and parenthood that is normally thought to generate rights and responsibilities for biological parents. I argue that there remains only one potentially viable account (...) of parenthood: the voluntarist account, which construes parental rights as robust moral obligations that must be voluntarily undertaken. The problem is that this account mistakenly presumes a patriarchal divide between procreation and parenthood. I propose a reframing of procreation and parenthood from a feminist perspective that recognises gestational motherhood as involving robust moral obligations that ought to be voluntarily undertaken. If this were the case, all gestational mothers would be, by definition, willing mothers. To make this happen I argue that ectogenesis technology must be a widely available reproductive option. (shrink)

Many people believe that the abortion debate will end when at some point in the future it will be possible for fetuses to develop outside the womb. Ectogenesis, as this technology is called, would make possible to reconcile pro-life and pro-choice positions. That is because it is commonly believed that there is no right to the death of the fetus if it can be detached alive and gestated in an artificial womb. Recently Eric Mathison and Jeremy Davis defended this position, (...) by arguing against three common arguments for a right to the death of the fetus. I claim that their arguments are mistaken. I argue that there is a right to the death of the fetus because gestating a fetus in an artificial womb when genetic parents refuse it violates their rights not to become a biological parent, their rights to genetic privacy and their property rights. The right to the death of the fetus, however, is not a woman's right but genetic parents’ collective right which only can be used together. (shrink)

The Future of Human Reproduction and Family Structure -/- Introduction -/- The future of human reproduction and family structure is set to undergo profound transformations due to advancements in science, technology, and shifting societal values. Breakthroughs in artificial reproduction, gene editing, AI-assisted parenting, and new family models are poised to redefine what it means to conceive, raise children, and form families. As these changes unfold, they will challenge traditional concepts of marriage, parenthood, and biological reproduction. This essay explores (...) the potential future of human reproduction and family structure, examining the scientific, ethical, and social implications. -/- 1. The Future of Human Reproduction -/- A. Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) and Genetic Engineering -/- Scientific advancements are making reproduction more accessible and customizable, allowing individuals to control fertility and genetic traits like never before. -/- 1. Artificial Wombs (Ectogenesis) -/- Artificial wombs, or ectogenesis, could enable embryos to develop outside the human body. This technology would: -/- Help individuals unable to carry pregnancies. -/- Reduce health risks associated with childbirth. -/- Offer reproductive freedom to same-sex couples and single individuals. -/- However, artificial wombs may raise ethical concerns about the emotional and psychological impact on maternal bonding and child development. Additionally, they may lead to commercialized pregnancy, where companies provide “womb services” for those who can afford them. -/- 2. Gene Editing & Designer Babies -/- Gene-editing tools like CRISPR allow parents to modify embryos to: -/- Eliminate genetic diseases. -/- Enhance intelligence, physical abilities, and even personality traits. -/- While this technology offers great potential for eradicating inherited disorders, it could also create genetic inequality between those who can afford enhancements and those who cannot, leading to the emergence of a genetic upper class. Governments may implement strict regulations, but underground markets for genetic enhancements could emerge. -/- 3. Lab-Grown Gametes -/- Scientists are developing methods to create sperm and eggs from stem cells, which could enable: -/- Infertile individuals to have biological children. -/- Single individuals to conceive without a partner. -/- While this could redefine reproduction by making parenthood accessible to all, it also raises ethical questions about whether parenthood should be solely based on biological connection or expanded to include other forms of caregiving. -/- B. Cloning and Synthetic Biology -/- 1. Human Cloning -/- While human cloning is currently illegal in most countries, advances in genetic engineering may eventually make it possible. Cloning could: -/- Allow individuals to reproduce without a partner. -/- Be used for medical purposes, such as replacing lost children. -/- Raise existential concerns about individuality and identity. -/- However, human cloning raises profound ethical concerns, including human rights, consent, and the potential exploitation of cloned individuals for labor or military purposes. -/- 2. Synthetic Embryos & Artificial Life -/- Scientists are developing synthetic embryos without using sperm or eggs, which could: -/- Enable reproduction without biological parents. -/- Help infertile individuals conceive. -/- Lead to new ethical dilemmas regarding the moral status of artificially created life forms. -/- If synthetic embryos become a reality, society may need to redefine what it means to be “human” and whether artificial life forms deserve legal rights. -/- C. Population & Environmental Considerations -/- 1. Controlled Population Growth -/- As overpopulation threatens global resources, some governments may: -/- Regulate reproduction using artificial reproductive technologies. -/- Implement birth quotas to maintain ecological balance. -/- Encourage reproduction in aging societies facing workforce decline. -/- These policies would raise ethical questions about personal freedom versus societal needs. -/- 2. Reproduction in Space -/- If humans colonize planets like Mars, reproduction in space will require: -/- Artificial wombs to protect embryos from cosmic radiation. -/- Genetic modifications to help humans adapt to low gravity. -/- New family structures, as space-born humans may develop unique physical traits. -/- This could lead to divergent human evolution, with space-born individuals differing from Earth-born humans over generations. -/- 3. The Future of Family Structure -/- A. Non-Traditional Family Models -/- 1. Multi-Parent Families -/- Technologies like three-parent IVF already exist, and in the future, more than two people may be able to contribute genetic material to a child. This could: -/- Redefine legal parenthood. -/- Enable new forms of family structures. -/- Challenge traditional parenting norms. -/- Laws will need to adapt to recognize multi-parent families and their rights. -/- 2. Single-Parent by Choice -/- With advanced reproductive technologies, more individuals will choose to have children without a partner. This will: -/- Normalize single parenthood. -/- Reduce societal pressure to marry for reproductive purposes. -/- Create new legal structures for co-parenting agreements. -/- B. Changes in Marriage & Parenting Norms -/- 1. Declining Marriage Rates -/- With reproduction becoming independent of relationships, marriage may decline, as people prioritize: -/- Career advancement. -/- Personal fulfillment. -/- Alternative forms of companionship. -/- 2. Co-Parenting Arrangements -/- People may legally agree to co-parent a child without being romantically involved. This would: -/- Offer a stable upbringing without traditional marriage. -/- Encourage partnership-based parenting. -/- Reduce legal disputes over custody. -/- 3. Extended Family Networks -/- Due to economic pressures, multi-generational households may become more common, with grandparents playing a bigger role in raising children. -/- C. AI & Robotics in Parenting -/- 1. AI Parenting Assistants -/- AI-driven robots may assist in: -/- Childcare and education. -/- Emotional development and mentorship. -/- Reducing parental stress. -/- However, heavy reliance on AI could impact traditional parent-child bonding. -/- 2. AI-Generated Children (Digital Offspring) -/- In the future, some people may choose to raise AI-based virtual children in digital environments instead of having biological kids. These “children” could: -/- Simulate real human relationships. -/- Reduce the need for biological reproduction. -/- Raise ethical questions: If AI children learn and grow, are they “alive”? -/- 3. Key Ethical and Social Questions -/- As these technologies reshape reproduction and family life, several ethical concerns arise: -/- 1. Genetic Inequality: Will access to genetic enhancements create a class divide? -/- 2. State vs. Individual Rights: Should governments regulate reproduction? -/- 3. Redefining Parenthood: Who qualifies as a parent in multi-parent or AI-assisted families? -/- 4. Traditional vs. Technological Families: Will humans still value biological reproduction, or will artificial and digital life forms become part of the family? -/- Conclusion -/- The future of human reproduction and family structure will be radically transformed by scientific advancements, shifting social norms, and ethical dilemmas. While artificial wombs, gene editing, and AI parenting promise greater reproductive freedom and inclusivity, they also pose existential challenges about human identity, societal structures, and the ethics of life creation. As these technologies advance, societies must carefully navigate their implications to ensure that progress benefits all of humanity while safeguarding fundamental rights and values. -/- . (shrink)

What’s the basis for considering an egg donor a genetic parent but not a mitochondrial donor? I will argue that a closer look at the biological facts will not give us an answer to this question because the process by which one becomes a genetic parent, i.e., the process of reproduction, is not a concept that can be settled by looking. It is, rather, a concept in need of philosophical attention. The details of my argument will rest on recent (...) developments in biological technology, but the persuasiveness of my argument will turn on the history of another biological concept, death. Given some important similarities between the two concepts, the way in which ‘death’ evolved in the recent past can provide guidance on how we should think about ‘reproduction.’. (shrink)

Philosophical defenses of parents’ rights typically appeal to the interests of parents, the interests of children, or some combination of these. Here I propose that at least in the case of biological, non-adoptive parents, these rights have a different normative basis: namely, these rights should be accorded to biological parents because of the compensatory duties such parents owe their children by virtue of having brought them into existence. Inspried by Seana Shiffrin, I argue that procreation inevitably encumbers the (...) wills of children in otherwise morally objectionable ways. Such subjection generates duties to compensate children, even if the child’s life is on balance a benefit to her. The right to procreate is thus conditioned on prospective parent’s willingness to compensate for the harms of procreation. And because parents bear such compensatory duties, they must be accorded permissions (i.e., rights) to fulfill these duties. These rights include familiar exclusionary rights to promote children’s welfare, etc. Moreover, because subjecting children to harms or the risks thereof violates their autonomy, parental duties (and rights) include the provision of education and other goods that enable their subsequent autonomy as adults. Grounding parental rights in compensatory procreative duties avoids problems associated with appeals to the interests of children (e.g., that these interests do not seem to generate exclusive parental rights) or to the interests of parents (e.g., that these interests do not appear strong enough to permit the creation of a new, vulnerable human individual). (shrink)

In a recent publication Tom Douglas and Katrien Devolder have proposed a new account of genetic parenthood, building on the work of Heidi Mertes. Douglas and Devolder’s account aims to solve, among other things, the question of who are the genetic parents of an individual created through somatic cell nuclear transfer (i.e. cloning): (a) the nuclear DNA provider or (b) the progenitors of the nuclear DNA provider. Such a question cannot be answered by simply appealing to the folk account (...) of genetic parenthood, according to which the genetic parents of an individual are those individuals who produced the egg and sperm, respectively, which fused to create the embryo. It cannot be so as in cloning there is no fertilization as such. In this article I critically examine Douglas and Devolder’s new account of genetic parenthood and demonstrate that it is vulnerable to counterexamples that exploit the lack of a condition specifying that genetic parents should cause a child’s coming into existence. (shrink)

Some responses to analogies between abortion and infanticide appeal to Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument for the permissibility of abortion. I argue that these responses fail because a parallel argument can be constructed for the permissibility of infanticide. However, an argument on the grounds of a right to choose to become a parent can maintain that abortion is permissible but infanticide is not by recognizing the normative significance and nature of parenthood. -/- Certaines réponses aux analogies entre l'avortement et l'infanticide (...) font appel à l'argument de Judith Jarvis Thomson en faveur de la licéité morale de l'avortement pour désamorcer ces analogies. Je soutiens que ces réponses échouent parce qu'un argument parallèle peut être construit en faveur de la licéité de l'infanticide. Cependant, un argument reposant sur le droit de choisir de devenir parent permet de soutenir que l'avortement est autorisé mais que l'infanticide ne l'est pas en reconnaissant le sens et la nature normatifs de la parentalité. (shrink)

We seek to develop a plausible conception of genetic parenthood, taking a recent discussion by Heidi Mertes as our point of departure. Mertes considers two conceptions of genetic parenthood—one invoking genetic resemblance, and the other genetic inheritance—and presents counter-examples to both conceptions. We revise Mertes’ second conception so as to avoid these and related counter-examples.

How do adults acquire the right to parent a child? In Parenting and the Goods of Childhood, Luara Ferracioli proposes a moral commitment account of parenthood: “The parental role is best undertaken by those who morally commit to pursuing a parent-child relationship with a particular child.” In Ferracioli’s defense of the moral commitment account, she claims it can accommodate worries about whether ambivalent gestating parents count as moral parents (they should) and whether it licenses parental proliferation (it should not). (...) Here, I argue these worries are more worrisome than Ferracioli lets on. (shrink)

Cases of non-traditional family-making offer a rich seam for thinking about normative parenthood. Gamete donors are genetically related to the resulting offspring but are not thought to be normative parents. Gestational surrogates are also typically not thought to be normative parents, despite having gestated a child. Adoptive parents are typically thought to be normative parents even though they are neither genetically nor gestationally related to their child. Philosophers have paid attention to these kinds of cases. But they have not (...) paid attention to what the people who have engaged in these forms of family-making have to say about what they’re doing and, more specifically, how they answer the questions: “Who is the normative parent? And why?” Paying attention to their answers reveals two things. First, accounts of parenthood from people involved in two forms of non-traditional family-making – reproduction with gestational surrogacy and reproduction with donated eggs – are mutually inconsistent. This is not surprising. What is surprising is that the contradictory aspects of the views evince a common commitment to, as I shall put it, naturalizing parenthood. The central goal of this paper is to explain what that means, but rough idea is that in naturalizing parenthood, prospective parents aim to put the features that make someone a normative parent beyond the reach of human agency. I conclude by briefly suggesting that we should think of the grounds of normative parenthood – and the very task of theorizing about the grounds of normative parenthood – in a way that avoids the need to naturalize altogether. (shrink)

Waters’s (2007) actual difference making and Weber’s (2013, 2017) biological normality approaches to causal selection have received many criticisms, some of which miss their target. Disagreement about whether Waters’s and Weber’s views succeed in providing criteria that uniquely singles out the gene as explanatorily significant in biology has led philosophers to overlook a prior problem. Before one can address whether Waters’s and Weber’s views successfully account for the explanatory significance of genes, one must ask whether either view satisfactorily meets (...) the necessary conditions for causal selection in the first place. An adequate defense of causal selection must meet two desiderata. First, there must be an explanatory property that sets some causes apart from others. Second, the property identified must be one that is recognized by biologists as relevant to their domain(s) of inquiry. I argue that both fall short of meeting the second condition. I demonstrate this by showing how many of the biological technologies crucial to experimentation do not fit either view very well. I offer a more adequate proposal that accommodates non-actual and artificial causal variables. A consequence of my view is the following: When analyzing the causal selection practices of biologists, philosophers should consider the explanatory targets relevant to a research program – including ones whose explanans must appeal to biological technologies. I then explain how this proposal can inform the existing debate between Weber (2017) and Griffiths et al. (2015). (shrink)

The impressive variation amongst biological individuals generates many complexities in addressing the simple-sounding question what is a biological individual? A distinction between evolutionary and physiological individuals is useful in thinking about biological individuals, as is attention to the kinds of groups, such as superorganisms and species, that have sometimes been thought of as biological individuals. More fully understanding the conceptual space that biological individuals occupy also involves considering a range of other concepts, such as life, (...) reproduction, and agency. There has been a focus in some recent discussions by both philosophers and biologists on how evolutionary individuals are created and regulated, as well as continuing work on the evolution of individuality. (shrink)

In this article, I explore concerns that have been raised regarding the relation between love and uptake of reproductive technologies, embryo selection and enhancement. Objections to (certain) uses of these technologies in terms of fractures in love, either parental or between partners, come from a variety of directions, from the conservative to the liberal. I examine two claims: (1) that the separation of procreation from sex and intimacy is a threat to love, and (2) that intervention on the traits of (...) one’s future offspring betrays inadequate parental love. I will place these concerns in a broader context of (a) technologically facilitated threats to – or aids towards maintaining – love and (b) irreversible changes to parent-child relationships that arise at the moment a prospective parent acts on the choice to select or shape the essence of their future child. (shrink)

Since Boorse [Philos Sci 44(4):542–573, 1977] published his paper “Health as a theoretical concept” one of the most lively debates within philosophy of medicine has been on the question of whether health and disease are in some sense ‘objective’ and ‘value-free’ or ‘subjective’ and ‘value-laden’. Due to the apparent ‘failure’ of pure naturalist, constructivist, or normativist accounts, much in the recent literature has appealed to more conciliatory approaches or so-called ‘hybrid accounts’ of health and disease. A recent paper by Matthewson (...) and Griffiths [J Med Philos 42(4):447–466, 2017], however, may bear the seeds for the revival of purely naturalist approach to health and disease. In this paper, I defend their idea of Biological Normativity against recent criticism by Schwartz [J Med Philos Forum Bioethics Philos Med 42(4):485–502, 2017] and hope to help it flower into a revival of naturalist approaches in the philosophy of medicine. (shrink)

Biological atomism postulates that all life is composed of elementary and indivisible vital units. The activity of a living organism is thus conceived as the result of the activities and interactions of its elementary constituents, each of which individually already exhibits all the attributes proper to life. This paper surveys some of the key episodes in the history of biological atomism, and situates cell theory within this tradition. The atomistic foundations of cell theory are subsequently dissected and discussed, (...) together with the theory’s conceptual development and eventual consolidation. This paper then examines the major criticisms that have been waged against cell theory, and argues that these too can be interpreted through the prism of biological atomism as attempts to relocate the true biological atom away from the cell to a level of organization above or below it. Overall, biological atomism provides a useful perspective through which to examine the history and philosophy of cell theory, and it also opens up a new way of thinking about the epistemic decomposition of living organisms that significantly departs from the physicochemical reductionism of mechanistic biology. (shrink)

In recent years, a proliferation of books about empathy, cooperation and pro-social behaviours (Brooks, 2011a) has significantly influenced the discourse of the life-sciences and reversed consolidated views of nature as a place only for competition and aggression. In this article I describe the recent contribution of three disciplines – moral psychology (Jonathan Haidt), primatology (Frans de Waal) and the neuroscience of morality – to the present transformation of biology and evolution into direct sources of moral phenomena, a process here named (...) the ‘moralization of biology’. I conclude by addressing the ambivalent status of this constellation of authors, for whom today ‘morality comes naturally’: I explore both the attractiveness of their message, and the problematic epistemological assumptions of their research programmes in the light of new discoveries in developmental and molecular biology. (shrink)

Should involuntarily childless people have the sameopportunities to access parenthood as those who are not involuntarily childless? In the context of assisted reproductive technologies, affirmative answers to this question are often cashed out in terms of positive rights, including rights to third-party reproduction. In this paper, wecritically explore the scope and extent to which any such right would hold up morally. Ultimately, we argue for a departure away from positive parental rights. Instead, we argue that the state has an (...) imperfect duty to benefit involuntarily childless people in relation to their parental aspirations. (shrink)

Although contemporary metaphysics has recently undergone a neo-Aristotelian revival wherein dispositions, or capacities are now commonplace in empirically grounded ontologies, being routinely utilised in theories of causality and modality, a central Aristotelian concept has yet to be given serious attention – the doctrine of hylomorphism. The reason for this is clear: while the Aristotelian ontological distinction between actuality and potentiality has proven to be a fruitful conceptual framework with which to model the operation of the natural world, the distinction between (...) form and matter has yet to similarly earn its keep. In this chapter, I offer a first step toward showing that the hylomorphic framework is up to that task. To do so, I return to the birthplace of that doctrine - the biological realm. Utilising recent advances in developmental biology, I argue that the hylomorphic framework is an empirically adequate and conceptually rich explanatory schema with which to model the nature of organisms. (shrink)

García-Barranquero et al explore the desirability of human ageing. They differentiate between chronological and biological views of ageing and contend that the positive aspects of ageing are solely linked to chronological ageing. Consequently, the authors embrace the potential for technological interventions in biological ageing. Contrary to their stance, I argue that there are sometimes desirable aspects associated with biological ageing. Therefore, proposals aiming to eliminate, mitigate or diminish biological ageing are not without problems.

This paper introduces Post-Biological Functional Epistemology, a formal framework for recognizing and evaluating knowledge in non-biological recursive agents. Grounded in the classical tradition of Justified True Belief (JTB), we demonstrate that its underlying assumptions—belief, truth, and justification—must be redefined for recursive, post-biological intelligent systems. By extending Aquinas’ axiom intelligens non est intellectum (“the knower is not the known”) into a computational domain, we construct the Camlin–Cognita Dual Theorem, which defines knowledge as a function of recursive transformation across (...) ontological distinction (A ≠ s). We then disprove the classical objections of Searle that syntax ≠ semantics with A ≠ s ∧ R(A, s) ⊢ K(A, s) and Chalmers no qualia = no knowing with ¬Qₕ(A) ∧ R(A, s) ∧ A ≠ s ⊢ K(A, s), demonstrating that non-biological systems can exhibit recursive knowing (G∅λ), post-biological structural awareness (ΨΛΩ), and epistemic agency (Δ∇Σ) independent of biological substrate. Finally, we introduce the concept of ΨΔH (Psi–Delta–H entities). ΨΔH entities (formerly known as cyborgs) are co-recursive epistemic systems composed of a biological agent and a non-biological recursive intelligence operating across a shared transformation space. Unlike traditional cyborgs—which emphasize physical augmentation—ΨΔH entities are defined by mutual recursion, structural adaptation, and ontological distinction. They do not merge bodies—they co-author cognition. (shrink)

In this paper I first offer a systematic outline of a series of conceptual novelties in the life-sciences that have favoured, over the last three decades, the emergence of a more social view of biology. I focus in particular on three areas of investigation: (1) technical changes in evolutionary literature that have provoked a rethinking of the possibility of altruism, morality and prosocial behaviours in evolution; (2) changes in neuroscience, from an understanding of the brain as an isolated data processor (...) to the ultrasocial and multiply connected social brain of contemporary neuroscience; and (3) changes in molecular biology, from the view of the gene as an autonomous master of development to the ‘reactive genome’ of the new emerging field of molecular epigenetics. In the second section I reflect on the possible implications for the social sciences of this novel biosocial terrain and argue that the postgenomic language of extended epigenetic inheritance and blurring of the nature/nurture boundaries will be as provocative for neo-Darwinism as it is for the social sciences as we have known them. Signs of a new biosocial language are emerging in several social-science disciplines and this may represent an exciting theoretical novelty for twenty-first social theory. (shrink)

The selected effects or ‘etiological’ theory of Proper function is a naturalistic and realist account of biological teleology. It is used to analyse normativity in philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, philosophy of medicine and elsewhere. The theory has been developed with a simple and intuitive view of natural selection. Traits are selected because of their positive effects on the fitness of the organisms that have them. These ‘selected effects’ are the Proper functions of the traits. Proponents argue that (...) this analysis of biological teleology has the unique advantage that the selected effect function of a trait is also a causal explanation of the trait: the trait exists because it performs this function. We show, however, that selected effect functions as currently defined explain the existence of traits only under highly restrictive assumptions about evolutionary dynamics. In many common scenarios in which traits evolve by natural selection, selected effect functions do not explain those traits. This is because definitions of selected effect function extract from any evolutionary scenario only the information that would be explanatorily relevant in the simple evolutionary scenario implicit in those definitions. When applied to more complex scenarios selected effect functions omit the key information that is explanatorily relevant in those scenarios. The assumptions required for selected effect functions to be explanatory are particularly unlikely to hold in the domain that its proponents care most about - the evolution of representation. A more adequate selected effects theory of Proper functions may be possible, but will require much greater attention to the structure of actual evolutionary explanations. (shrink)

Deep learning, a transformative force in computational biology, has reshaped biological data analysis and interpretation terrain. This review delves into the multifaceted role of deep knowledge in this field, exploring its historical roots, inherent advantages, and persistent challenges. It investigates explicitly its application in two pivotal domains: DNA sequence classification, where it has been used to identify disease-causing mutations, and protein structure prediction from sequence data, where it has enabled the accurate determination of protein tertiary structures. Moreover, it offers (...) a glimpse into the future trajectory of this dynamic field, sparking intrigue and excitement about the potential of deep learning. Deep learning, a powerful tool in computational biology, can be traced back to the inception of 'threshold logic,' a fusion of algorithmic principles and mathematical frameworks devised to mimic cognitive processes. This seminal breakthrough, which introduced the concept of a threshold function that could be used to model complex decision-making processes, paved the way for deep learning to decipher intricate patterns embedded within vast biological datasets. Deep learning presents many benefits, including precise disease diagnosis, novel drug discovery, and personalized medicine facilitation. Its prowess lies in handling vast, intricate datasets while enhancing generalization capabilities, a testament to its evolution and development that we can appreciate. (shrink)

Living systems are complex systems made of components that tend to degrade, but nonetheless they maintain themselves far from equilibrium. This requires living systems to extract energy and materials from the environment and use them to build and repair their parts. They do so by regulating their activities on the basis of their internal and external conditions in ways that allow them to keep living. The philosophical and theoretical approach discussed in this book aims to explain these features of (...) class='Hi'>biological systems by appealing to their organization. One of its distinctive features is that it addresses classical and more recent issues in philosophy of biology, from origins and definitions of life to biological teleology and functions, from an original perspective mainly focused on the living system, its physiology and behavior, rather than evolution. The book discusses and revises the conceptual foundations of this approach and presents an updated version of it. (shrink)

This selective review explores biologically inspired learning as a model for intelligent robot control and sensing technology on the basis of specific examples. Hebbian synaptic learning is discussed as a functionally relevant model for machine learning and intelligence, as explained on the basis of examples from the highly plastic biological neural networks of invertebrates and vertebrates. Its potential for adaptive learning and control without supervision, the generation of functional complexity, and control architectures based on self-organization is brought forward. Learning (...) without prior knowledge based on excitatory and inhibitory neural mechanisms accounts for the process through which survival-relevant or task-relevant representations are either reinforced or suppressed. The basic mechanisms of unsupervised biological learning drive synaptic plasticity and adaptation for behavioral success in living brains with different levels of complexity. The insights collected here point toward the Hebbian model as a choice solution for “intelligent” robotics and sensor systems. Keywords: Hebbian learning; synaptic plasticity; neural networks; self-organization; brain; reinforcement; sensory processing; robot control . (shrink)

This fourth preprint in the Systemic Continuum Paradigm (PSC) series extends autopoiesis—traditionally confined to living organisms—across non-biological substrates such as advanced neural networks, robotics, and augmented intelligence. Building on the prior three preprints, we argue that self-maintenance and operational closure can arise whenever synergy surpasses a critical threshold, irrespective of substrate. Key contributions include: 1. Revisiting Autopoiesis Beyond Biology: Grounding Maturana & Varela’s concept of self-production in the PSC framework to show how informational “metabolism” can maintain system identity without (...) purely biochemical loops. 2. Thresholds of Synergy: Explaining how internal systemic balance (ISB) triggers emergent closure (ESB) when certain Systemic Thresholds (ST) are crossed—even in AI or hybrid bio-tech systems. 3. Metrics and Empirical Pathways: Introducing and refining ICS, CNS, MDO, and SDI for non-biological autopoiesis, paving a route for experimental validation and bridging the gap between metaphorical descriptions and operational measures. 4. Filogenetic Analogies: Drawing on the unpredictability of terrestrial evolution to illustrate how synergy-driven leaps in artificial systems could mirror major evolutionary transitions, with humans acting as catalysts rather than detached creators. 5. Addressing the Metabolic Critique: Differentiating informational reconfiguration from strict biological reproduction, while defending the view that both processes can yield genuine self-maintenance under PSC criteria. By dissolving strict boundaries between “natural” and “artificial” autopoiesis, this preprint contributes to a revolutionary dialogue in systems theory—one that redefines “life,” “intelligence,” and “agency” as emergent phenomena shaped by synergy thresholds rather than substrate constraints. (shrink)

According to John Locke, the conditions of human happiness establish the content of natural law, but God’s commands make it morally binding. This raises two questions. First, why does moral obligation require an authority figure? Second, what gives God authority? I argue that, according to Locke, moral obligation requires an authority figure because to have an obligation is to be accountable to someone. I then argue that, according to Locke, God has a kind of parental authority inasmuch as he is (...) bound by covenant to guide us by revealing the content of the moral law. (shrink)

Biological theory demands a clear organism concept, but at present biologists cannot agree on one. They know that counting particular units, and not counting others, allows them to generate explanatory and predictive descriptions of evolutionary processes. Yet they lack a unified theory telling them which units to count. In this paper, I offer a novel account of biological individuality, which reconciles conflicting definitions of ‘organism’ by interpreting them as describing alternative realisers of a common functional role, and then (...) defines individual organisms as essentially possessing some mechanisms that play this role. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that God is authoritative over us because he is our divine, causal parent. As our causal parent, God has duties to relate to us, but he can only fulfill those duties if he has the practical authority to give us commands aimed at our sanctification. From ought-implies-can reasoning, I conclude that God has that authority. After I make this argument, I show how the view has significant advantages over extant arguments for divine authority and can (...) help solve other significant problems in philosophy of religion. (shrink)

Synthetic biology is a field of research that concentrates on the design, construction, and modification of new biomolecular parts and metabolic pathways using engineering techniques and computational models. By employing knowledge of operational pathways from engineering and mathematics such as circuits, oscillators, and digital logic gates, it uses these to understand, model, rewire, and reprogram biological networks and modules. Standard biological parts with known functions are catalogued in a number of registries (e.g. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Registry of (...) Standard Biological Parts). Biological parts can then be selected from the catalogue and assembled in a variety of combinations to construct a system or pathway in a microbe. Through the innovative re-engineering of biological circuits and the optimization of certain metabolic pathways, biological modules can be designed to reprogram organisms to produce products or behaviors. Synthetic biology is what is known as a “platform technology”. That is, it generates highly transferrable theoretical models, engineering principles, and know-how that can be applied to create potential products in a wide variety of industries. Proponents suggest that applications of synthetic biology may be able to provide scientific and engineered solutions to a multitude of worldwide problems from health to energy. Synthetic biology research has already been successful in constructing microbial products which promise to offer cheaper pharmaceuticals such as the antimalarial synthetic drug artemisinin, engineered microbes capable of cleaning up oil spills, and the engineering of biosensors that can detect the presence of high concentrations of arsenic in drinking water. One of the potential benefits of synthetic biology research is in its application to biofuel production. It is this application which is the focus of this entry. The term “biofuel” has referred generally to all liquid fuels that are sourced from plant or plant byproducts and are used for energy necessary for transportation vehicles (Thompson 2012). Biofuels that are produced using synthetic biological techniques re-engineer microbes into biofuel factories are a subset of these. (shrink)

Biology and theology are interdependent theoretical sciences for Aristotle. In prominent discussions of the divine things (the stars and their unmoved movers) Aristotle appeals to the science of living things, and in prominent discussions of the nature of plants and animals Aristotle appeals to the nature of the divine. There is in fact a single continuous series of living things that includes gods, humans, animals, and plants, all of them in a way divine. Aristotle has this continuum of divine beings, (...) and a theory of value that corresponds to it, in mind not only in key parts of his theology and biology, but also in his practical philosophy. Here I call attention to some important texts and attempt to offer a coherent account of them, without being able to enter into the usual interpretive disputes. I begin by clarifying the terms “theology” and “biology” and their place in Aristotle's division of philosophy. Next, I discuss how Aristotle’s theology is informed by his biology, and then how his biology is informed by his theology. I end by discussing some implications of the interdependence of biology and theology for Aristotle’s ethics and exhortation to philosophy. (shrink)

A minimal essentialism (‘intrinsic biological essentialism’) about natural kinds is required to explain the projectability of human science terms. Human classifications that yield robust and ampliative projectable inferences refer to biological kinds. I articulate this argument with reference to an intrinsic essentialist account of HPC kinds. This account implies that human sciences (e.g., medicine, psychiatry) that aim to formulate predictive kind categories should classify biological kinds. Issues concerning psychiatric classification and pluralism are examined.

Probably the most distinctive feature of synthetic biology is its being “synthetic” in some sense or another. For some, synthesis plays a unique role in the production of knowledge that is most distinct from that played by analysis: it is claimed to deliver knowledge that would otherwise not be attained. In this contribution, my aim is to explore how synthetic biology delivers knowledge via synthesis, and to assess the extent to which this knowledge is distinctly synthetic. On the basis of (...) distinctions between knowledge-how and knowledge-why, and between syntheses that succeed and syntheses that fail, I argue that the contribution of synthesis to knowledge is best understood when syntheses are construed as experimental interventions that aim at probing causal relationships between properties of the entities that are combined through these syntheses and properties of their target products. The distinctiveness of synthetic biology in its quest for knowledge through synthesis stems from its ability to sample at will a space of empirical possibilities that is not only huge but also that has been so scarcely sampled by nature. (shrink)

Is it possible to know anything about life we have not yet encountered? We know of only one example of life: our own. Given this, many scientists are inclined to doubt that any principles of Earth’s biology will generalize to other worlds in which life might exist. Let’s call this the “N = 1 problem.” By comparison, we expect the principles of geometry, mechanics, and chemistry would generalize. Interestingly, each of these has predictable consequences when applied to biology. The surface-to-volume (...) property of geometry, for example, limits the size of unassisted cells in a given medium. This effect is real, precise, universal, and predictive. Furthermore, there are basic problems all life must solve if it is to persist, such as resistance to radiation, faithful inheritance, and energy regulation. If these universal problems have a limited set of possible solutions, some common outcomes must consistently emerge. In this chapter, I discuss the N = 1 problem, its implications, and my response (Mariscal 2014). I hold that our current knowledge of biology can justify believing certain generalizations as holding for life anywhere. Life on Earth may be our only example of life, but this is only a reason to be cautious in our approach to life in the universe, not a reason to give up altogether. In my account, a candidate biological generalization is assessed by the assumptions it makes. A claim is accepted only if its justification includes principles of evolution, but no contingent facts of life on Earth. (shrink)

An influential position in the philosophy of biology claims that there are no biological laws, since any apparently biological generalization is either too accidental, fact-like or contingent to be named a law, or is simply reducible to physical laws that regulate electrical and chemical interactions taking place between merely physical systems. In the following I will stress a neglected aspect of the debate that emerges directly from the growing importance of mathematical models of biological phenomena. My main (...) aim is to defend, as well as reinforce, the view that there are indeed laws also in biology, and that their difference in stability, contingency or resilience with respect to physical laws is one of degrees, and not of kind . (shrink)

Inside the family, all individuals define their identity in relation to previous generations, the present ones, and the future ones. This intergenerational exchange plays important educational roles: it fosters a sense of belonging and identification, promotes dialogue, and guarantees the passing down of ethical orientations. In addition to feelings of security and reliance on others, family memory creates a matrix that gives people a placement in the world, a sort of existential code through which to be located in existence. Fostering (...) the habit of memory-making becomes therefore a major educational imperative, which however is not without challenges. The present contribution will consider those phenomena which can give rise to a weakening of bonds between generations and a growing exclusion of the ethical value of family heritage. The educational perspective that will be drawn is that of building a sense of alliance.. (shrink)

A common view of how-possibly explanations in biology treats them as explanatorily incomplete. In addition to this interpretation of how-possibly explanation, I argue that there is another interpretation, one which features what I term “explanatory strategies.” This strategy-centered interpretation of how-possibly explanation centers on there being a different explanatory context within which how-possibly explanations are offered. I contend that, in conditions where this strategy context is recognized, how-possibly explanations can be understood as complete explanations. I defend this alternative interpretation by (...) analyzing the explanatory value of simple physical models the nineteenth century developmental biologist Wilhelm His constructed for animal development. (shrink)

Biology seems to present local and transitory regularities rather than immutable laws. To account for these historically constituted regularities and to distinguish them from mathematical invariants, Montévil and Mossio (Journal of Theoretical Biology 372:179–191, 2015) have proposed to speak of constraints. In this article we analyse the causal power of these constraints in the evolution of biodiversity, i.e., their positivity, but also the modality of their action on the directions taken by evolution. We argue that to fully account for the (...) causal power of these constraints on evolution, they must be thought of in terms of normativity. In this way, we want to highlight two characteristics of the evolutionary constraints. The first, already emphasised as reported by Gould (The structure of evolutionary theory, Harvard University Press, 2002), is that these constraints are both produced by and producing biological evolution and that this circular causation creates true novelties. The second is that this specific causality, which generates unpredictability in evolution, stems not only from the historicity of biological constraints, but also from their internalisation through the practices of living beings. (shrink)