- 著者
-
森岡 次郎
- 出版者
- The Japanese Society for the Philosophy of Education
- 雑誌
- 教育哲学研究 (ISSN:03873153)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- no.93, pp.102-121, 2006
- 被引用文献数
-
1
The purpose of this paper is to examine new eugenics and education.<BR>For the last several years, such ideas as "Designers Baby" and "Perfect Baby" have been discussed in terms of "New Eugenics". This idea means the artificial production of babies by genetic technology according to the desire of parents. If educational values can be realized to some extent by genetic technology, new eugenics will necessitate our views on education to change. From this perspective, this paper examines the implications of new eugenics for education.<BR>First of all, the history of eugenics is surveyed and new eugenics is positioned historically. Here, new eugenics can be positioned in an eugenical trend after the 1970s. Next, the theoretical features of new eugenics are clarified in its contrast to old eugenics. This makes it clear that new eugenics is based on the principle of selfdetermination and on the principle of scientific validity. (2) <BR>Then, the criticisms of new eugenics are reviewed. Here, by considering Glen McGee's and others' arguments, it becomes clear that any fatal criticism of new eugenics does not exist yet. However, in the argument by Jürgen Habermas, education and new eugenics are distinguished in view of the existence of "others." It enables us to find out a positive value to the conditions of "others" in education that cannot be fully satisfied. (3) <BR>Finally, it is clarified from the standpoint of the system theory of Niklas Luhmann that children as "others" are indispensable as the media in an educational system. Based on Emmanuel Levinas' concept of "désir", I present the point of view of "the desire for others", one that gives a positive value to the "existence of others". (4) <BR>"New eugenics" and education have affinity in terms of operational intervention in children. However, from the point of view of "the desire for others", it becomes clear that both are fundamentally in conflict.