Debates about the moral and political acceptability of particular sexual practices and new technologies often include appeals to a supposed imperative to follow nature. If nature is understood as the totality of all phenomena or as those things that are not artificial, there is little prospect of developing a successful argument to impugn interference with it or sinning against it. At the same time, there are serious difficulties with approaches that seek to identify "proper" human functioning. An alternative approach is to understand interference with nature as acting in a manner that threatens basic background conditions to human choice. Arguably, the theory of background conditions helps explain much of the hostility to practices and technologies that allegedly sin against nature. The theory does not, however, entail that appeals to nature are relevant or rational. Such appeals should be subjected to sceptical scrutiny. Indeed, the theory suggests that arguments against practices and technologies that can be seen as contrary to nature sometimes exercise a psychological attraction that is disproportional to their actual cogency.
- IVF, in vitro fertilisation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests: None.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Just another reproductive technology? The ethics of human reproductive cloning as an experimental medical procedure
- Assisted reproductive technologies and equity of access issues
- Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise
- Artificial gametes, the unnatural and the artefactual
- Is a consensus possible on stem cell research? Moral and political obstacles
- What exactly is an exact copy? And why it matters when trying to ban human reproductive cloning in Australia
- What’s in a name? Embryos, entities, and ANTities in the stem cell debate
- ‘My child will never initiate Ultimate Harm’: an argument against moral enhancement
- Our right to in vitro fertilisation—its scope and limits
- Embryo deaths in reproduction and embryo research: a reply to Murphy's double effect argument