Dilemma

Should we edit the human germline?

Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.

Context

CRISPR-Cas9 and related technologies have made editing the human germline — changes that pass to descendants — an engineering possibility rather than a hypothetical. The first heritable edits in humans have already been reported, prompting moratoria, criminal charges, and a policy debate that is louder than it is clear. Underneath the regulatory question is an ontological one: what kind of thing is human nature? Schools across the atlas split on this question along the same lines they split on every other 'what is X really?' question — and the political conclusion (permit, restrict, prohibit) does not fall directly out of the ontological position.

Why it matters

How a tradition reads human nature shapes whether it treats heritable editing as transgression of something given, as a practice-revision to be evaluated on its consequences, as a reshaping of the relational fabric of descent and kinship, as an empirical question without metaphysical stakes, or as ordinary moral reasoning at the conventional level. Schools sharing a stance here can land on quite different practical recommendations, and schools differing on the underlying ontology can converge on shared positions about what should be permitted.

The coordinates that split the schools

Information · Ontological Status Whether information is fundamental, relational, or emergent Matter · Ontological Status Whether matter is fundamental, relational, or emergent Observer · Number Whether selves are genuinely distinct, or aspects of one

The stances

Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.

114 schools

On this view, the human form is a real feature of the world — handed over by reproductive biology, by divine creation, or by both. Germline editing rewrites what was given, not just what was lying around to be improved. The objection is not that specific edits are reckless (though they often are) but that the practice treats human nature as raw material when it is, in fact, a kind.

Why these schools land hereSchools with the realist signature read natural kinds as real features of the world. The Abrahamic and Hindu realist traditions (Catholic, Reformed, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, LDS, Islamic, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Dvaita, Sāṃkhya) supplement biological realism with an explicit theological account of the human form as given. Confucianism and Hylomorphism via their realist signatures share the commitment to a human nature that is not merely a phenotype to be tuned. The philosophical-realist coordinate-twins (Realism, Determinism, Eternalism, OOO, Critical Realism) share the formal commitment to a real human nature without the theological component. The schools differ on policy: some permit therapy-but-not-enhancement, some prohibit heritable editing altogether, some would accept narrowly framed disease prevention. What they share is the refusal to read the germline as a substrate without standing of its own.

Where this stance leads ⓘ

Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.

30 schools

On relational views, what makes someone a person is the web of kinship, ancestry, and community they sit in — not a property the body carries alone. Heritable editing intervenes in exactly this fabric: the lineage that ancestors handed on, the descent that descendants will receive. The objection (or assent) is not about transgressing an essence but about reshaping the relations that constitute persons.

Why these schools land hereAnimism, African Traditional Religion, Ubuntu, Afrofuturism, Deep Ecology, and Shintoism read personhood relationally and so read the germline as part of the ancestral fabric rather than as private biological property. Many traditions in this cluster have long-standing accounts of obligations to ancestors and to unborn descendants that bear directly on what kinds of heritable change are permissible. The cluster does not automatically prohibit editing — some indigenous and Afrofuturist thinkers explicitly read biotechnology as a site of ancestral co-authorship rather than as transgression — but it does insist the question be answered relationally rather than individually.

Where this stance leads ⓘ

'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.

16 schools

On this view, 'human nature' picks out an overlapping cluster of features — anatomical, developmental, cognitive, social — without a single essence the cluster reduces to. The question of whether germline editing is permissible doesn't turn on transgressing an essence (there isn't one) but on the empirical and ethical question of what particular edits do to particular lives.

Why these schools land hereProcess, postmodern, and constructivist schools — Buddhism, Existentialism, Postmodernism, Process Philosophy, Phenomenalism, Constructivism, Yogācāra, Taoism, Sikhism, Absurdism, Presentism, Occasionalism, Relativism, Wellness, Psychedelic — reject the demand for an essentialist account of the human. The skeptical relational schools (Nihilism, Pyrrhonism) reach a similar conclusion from suspended judgement. Buddhism's anatta is the most explicit: there isn't a fixed human essence; what germline editing changes is the conditioned arising, not a substance. The shared move is to refuse the framing that asks whether editing crosses an ontological line, in favour of asking what it actually produces.

Where this stance leads ⓘ

The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.

15 schools

On non-dual views, the contrast between an 'edited' and an 'unedited' human — like every binary distinction between apparent selves — is a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. The practical questions of safety, consent, and justice operate at the conventional level where most of life is lived; at the ultimate level the modification is one more pattern in the play of forms.

Why these schools land hereAdvaita Vedānta, Sufi waḥdat al-wujūd, Idealism, Solipsism, Neo-Platonism, Rationalism, and Transcendentalism share obs_number=Singular. They do not typically endorse specific policy conclusions about heritable editing — those conclusions live within the conventional frame where ordinary moral reasoning applies. The characteristic emphasis is that fear of transgression and ambition for enhancement both presuppose a hard separation between self and given that the non-dual view does not honor.

Where this stance leads ⓘ

← What makes someone male or female? Do you really choose? →

Back to all dilemmas Take the quiz

Should we edit the human germline?

Context

Why it matters

The coordinates that split the schools

The stances

Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given.

The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other.

Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.

'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical.

The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.

Related Experiments

Related Films

Related Historical Debates