ABSTRACT
In this chapter, Adam Shriver builds upon and clarifies previous arguments suggesting that gene editing animals with a reduced capacity to suffer is preferable to the current status quo of animals suffering in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), also known as factory farms. He argues that an approach that takes suffering seriously compels us to consider this option and that the suggested harm of gene editing proposed by critics does not outweigh the importance of the elimination of suffering. Additionally, Shriver suggests that even if one does not believe in a “weighing” approach to ethics, gene editing in fact will provide us with more subtle and fine-grained interventions than previously supposed, which will also allow gene editing technology to avoid many of the objections put forward by critics. Finally, Shriver argues that some criticisms are driven by attributing “harms” to animals that in fact are only products of human conceptions of the world. Ultimately, he suggests that when it comes to using gene editing to reduce suffering, the primary debate of practical significance is simply where to draw the line in terms of which enhancements are permissible, and not whether a line should be drawn at all.
