In his book “Better than Human”, Allen Buchanan explores the issues that stems from the highly controversial topic of biomedical enhancements. Buchanan aims to present his view on why biomedical enhancements should be embraced and is actually not much different from the enhancements that we already have presently. The main arguments posed by Buchanan include the ethical issues that arise from allowing biomedical enhancements are not novel and can be tackled (via regulation – legally or biologically, if we want to) and tackling the issue of what is seen as “natural” and how “natural” does not equate to optimal. Additionally, biomedical enhancements – a subset of biomedical science – generate new knowledge that can equip us with the capacity …show more content…
Biologically, it can mean our “basic biological makeup”. Aristotle holds the view that it is “something permanent and universal in all humans”, in which losing any of these “essential characteristics” will rob us of our humanity. Buchanan raises the point that UGM, since it is not morally selective, is unlikely to preserve the parts of “human nature” that are valued most by us. Additionally, “nature” can also be defined culturally, since culture has since become very important for “defining who we are” and “how we differ” from other animals. Biomedical enhancement can also generate new knowledge to aid us in self-improvement, which is touched on by Buchanan in Chapter 7. He believes that any “sane” approach to the risks of biomedical enhancements must be “knowledge-sensitive”, which reflects and encourages the “growth of knowledge”. Not only does this knowledge enable us to grasp and apply the concept of biomedical engineering in a “scientifically informed” way, it can also go a long way in future developments that can improve both our quality of life and perhaps a breakthrough in the knowledge …show more content…
He took into consideration the viewpoints of those who proposed differing ideas and structured some of his arguments around them. Additionally, he structured his argument in an organized way, starting with an overview, followed by the definition and discussion of the main concepts and then following up with his arguments. However, Buchanan focused mainly on the ethical aspects of biomedical engineering, where his arguments are all structured towards proving his stance to allow and embrace biomedical enhancements. It would be significantly better, though, if Buchanan elaborated more on the other philosophical issues that arise from this topic, which would have contributed greatly to make a stronger
However, Buchanan acted irresponsibly in regards to the case. He corresponded with both Justice John Catron and Justice Robert Grier trying to learn when the decision of the case would occur (Auchampaugh 236). His purpose in this was to discover if the decision would occur before or after his inauguration, and as such, his inaugural address. In regards to the Chief Justice, “Buchanan emphatically denied that he and Taney had ...
Tom Buchanan was said to be “.of Chicago with more pomp and circumstance than Louisville ever knew before.” (Fitzgerald 82). Being that this was said by Jordan Baker, a famous golfer, exemplified how much power Buchanan held, even with the socialites. This statement also defined his will power, arete, because it laid out how he did not stray from his code of conduct when it came to power.
With the progression of modern biotechnology, there is much contentious debate affecting ongoing developmental affairs. Controversy aligns itself with cautious thoughts on the appropriate amount of enhancement that can be applied before it undermines the “gifted character of human power and achievement (Sandel).” Michael Sandel, author of The Case Against Perfection argues through political discourse that the passion to master all of the science dominion through the use of such technology is largely flawed by our interpretations of perfection.
Recent breakthroughs in the field of genetics and biotechnology have brought attention to the ethical issues surrounding human enhancement. While these breakthroughs have many positive aspects, such as the treatment and prevention of many debilitating diseases and extending human life expectancy well beyond its current limits, there are profound moral implications associated with the ability to manipulate our own nature. Michael Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection” examines the ethical and moral issues associated with human enhancement while Nick Bostrom’s paper, “In Defense of Posthuman Dignity” compares the positions that transhumanists and bioconservatists take on the topic of human enhancement. The author’s opinions on the issue of human genetic enhancement stand in contrast to one another even though those opinions are based on very similar topics. The author’s views on human enhancement, the effect enhancement has on human nature, and the importance of dignity are the main issues discussed by Sandel and Bostrom and are the focus of this essay.
...hich inherited traits, such as those for genetic disease, can be tracked over generations. Throughout out the course of human development, scientists will continue to find new new ways to help the human race through the discovery of the human gene inside of each of us, its uses, as well as complications, that can help the survival of our species.
In this paper, I will negatively expose Walter Glannon’s position on the differentially between gene therapy and gene enhancement. His argument fails because gene therapy and genetic enhancement is morally impermissible because its manipulation and destruction of embryos shows disrespect for human life and discrimination against people with disabilities.
The two controversial topics discussed below share a single goal: to enhance the quality of life of a human individual. The first topic, transhumanism, is a largely theoretical movement that involves the advancement of the human body through scientific augmentations of existing human systems. This includes a wide variety of applications, such as neuropharmacology to enhance the function of the human brain, biomechanical interfaces to allow the human muscles to vastly out-perform their unmodified colleagues, and numerous attempts to greatly extend, perhaps indefinitely, the human lifespan. While transhumanist discussion is predominantly a thinking exercise, it brings up many important ethical dilemmas that may face human society much sooner than the advancements transhumanism desires to bring into reality. The second topic, elective removal of healthy limbs at the request of the patient, carries much more immediate gravity. Sufferers of a mental condition known as Body Integrity Identity Disorder seek to put to rest the disturbing disconnect between their internal body image and their external body composition. This issue is often clouded by sensationalism and controversy in the media, and is therefore rarely discussed in a productive manner (Bridy). This lack of discussion halts progress and potentially limits citizens' rights, as legislation is enacted without sufficient research. The primary arguments against each topic are surprisingly similar; an expansion on both transhumanism and elective amputation follows, along with a discussion of the merit of those arguments. The reader will see how limits placed on both transhumanism and elective amputation cause more harm to whole of human society than good.
The Biomedical Model constitutes the absence of disease, pain and defect of the body (Fanany, 2012). (Baum, 2012) describes the Biomedical Model in reference to the human body “like clockwork”. He believes that the body is like a machine. Every individual part that fits together must be able to function interpedently for the rest of the body to work – just like a clock.
Tom Buchanan’s moral character can be quesitoned due to his dispicable and patheic nature when it comes to his actions throughout the novel. Even though he was born into a wealthy family and thus inherited the wealth he has in the novel, no signs of moral teachings by his family were evident. The actions he took in the book were due to him being a conceited and ignorant man. His ignorance was a result of the easy access he had to power and wealth. He feels that because he has wealth and power in society, he is given the acquiescence to be as arrogant and immoral as he so chooses and society cannot do anything about it. Because of this he looks down upon people that he feels are lower in the social and financial ladder.
The fact that there have been many advancements in biomedical technology over the years have given us the ability to cure and prevent diseases that have once devastated the human population. These breakthroughs have allowed people to live longer and healthier lives, yet others believe that it runs the risk of “playing God” and that such matters should be left into the hands of a higher power. Today, this ethical debate still continues to raise questions on whether these scientific breakthroughs are morally acceptable. While I support the use of scientific breakthroughs, I believe that it should only be used for human benefit to cure those who are suffering from cancer. This approach seems more reasonable than using this technology to choose one’s eye color or keep someone on life support just because it is something that can be done, whether or not that is acceptable or not.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu, in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings,” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is a morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.
The procedures that will be the future of modern medicine currently fall into the realms of taboo and fictional. These procedures encompass every aspect of medical science, from exploration of the human body, curing diseases, to improving a person’s quality of life. Many of these procedures are not very well known, while a few have been in the spotlight. These procedures include cloning, nano-robotics, retro-viruses, and genetic manipulation via gene-specific medications. For any serious breakthroughs in modern medical science, we must embrace these new forms of treatment instead of shying away from them. Second, I’ll attempt to explain how these methods and procedures could benefit mankind.
Transhumanism is described as a cultural movement that believes the human “condition should be upgraded by genetic engineering and neural prostheses into a new type of human”(Belaunde V. ,2009 pg.2). In order words the use of technology in order to suppress the mental and physical limitations of humans, such as aging or loss of a lost limb. The issue of transhumanism has been debated over the years and is still being questioned by many scientist and religious authorities.The answer to question of rather using this technologies is ethical ‘right or wrong’ is more uncertain today than in previous generations.