Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
What does the prospect of being able to alter a human being's “natural assets” by genetic engineering imply for our understanding of the requirements of justice, and of equal opportunity in particular? Although their proponents are reluctant to admit it, some of the most prominent contemporary theories of justice yield a quite radical conclusion: If safe and effective intervention in the genetic “natural lottery” becomes feasible, there will be at least a strong prima facie case for doing so in the name of equality of opportunity (or of some other egalitarian principle of justice, such as the principle that persons are entitled to equal concern and respect), if this is the most effective way to meet the demands of justice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Allen Buchanan (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: