Scientific and technological advances are the products of man's inherent desire to improve the society in which he lives. Such progress often accompanies an expansion of intellectual boundaries. As one acquires knowledge, one also encounters new opportunities to be explored. This is true in the area of human genome research. The implications of The Human Genome Project and other attempts to further understand the human genetic code clearly demonstrate the basic principles of social benefit versus social cost. The desired effect is obviously one in which the benefits significantly outweigh the costs. The actual impact of such technology, however, remains only an estimate until this scientific advancement becomes a reality. It is out of this inability to predict how new technology may transform society that controversy arises. For if one estimates the value of knowledge and progress to ultimately influence society in a negative manner, then, perhaps such advancement should not be attempted. The Human Genome Project and other studies involving genetic research invite debate on the most controversial and highly moral issues that characterize and define the nature of life.
The controversy arises from both the techniques and aims of gene therapy. Gene therapy attempts to correct the "deleterious effect(s) of a genetic disorder"(Wheale & McNally, 212) through the replacement or repair of defective genes in human cells. The basic technique of such therapy involves either replacing the activity of a defective gene with a previously dormant gene or inserting genetic material into defective cells(212). The danger of such therapy is due to risks inherent in the techniques. Scientists, for example, may not fully and accurately...
... middle of paper ...
...r. Our enthusiasim must be matched by cautionary measures against discrimination(racial or otherwise), exploitation, and invasions of privacy. The desired goal should be to create an environment that promotes scientific progress and protects those elementary assumptions we hold valuable to life.
Works Cited
British Medical Association. Our Genetic Future. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Butler, Declan. "Pope condemns `immoral' embryo research." Nature 6 April 1995: 489.
Esbjornson, Robert, ed. The Manipulation of Life. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1984.
Suzuki, David, and Peter Knudtson. Genethics: The Clash Between the New Genetics and Human Values. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Wheale, Peter R., and Ruth M. McNally. Genetic Engineering: Catastrophe or Utopia? New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988.
Are his words implying he is optimistic or pessimistic? While reading his letters I felt he was optimistic. He did not seem lost or confused, in fact, I almost sensed he was amused and enjoying himself while writing his thoughts. I've never known anyone to feel pessimistic while expressing themselves, no matter what the topic may be.
...ys. Mental liberation lies in Blacks discovering a way to define themselves, speak for themselves, and name themselves. Blacks must believe in the value and belief in their divine nature. Blacks must understand that they are not free until the find spiritual, mental and physical liberation (Parham, White, Ajamu, 2000).
The more we know about genetics and the building blocks of life the closer we get to being capable of cloning a human. The study of chromosomes and DNA strains has been going on for years. In 1990, the Unites States Government founded the Human Genome Project (HGP). This program was to research and study the estimated 80,000 human genes and determine the sequences of 3 billion DNA molecules. Knowing and being able to examine each sequence could change how humans respond to diseases, viruses, and toxins common to everyday life. With the technology of today the HGP expects to have a blueprint of all human DNA sequences by the spring of 2000. This accomplishment, even though not cloning, presents other new issues for individuals and society. For this reason the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was brought in to identify and address these issues. They operate to secure the individuals rights to those who contribute DNA samples for studies. The ELSI, being the biggest bioethics program, has to decide on important factors when an individual’s personal DNA is calculated. Such factors would include; who would have access to the information, who controls and protects the information and when to use it? Along with these concerns, the ESLI tries to prepare for the estimated impacts that genetic advances could be responsible for in the near future. The availability of such information is becoming to broad and one needs to be concerned where society is going with it.
John Rawls’ theory of justice is one of the most interesting philosophies to have emerged in modern times. It was introduced in the 1970s when A Theory of Justice was published. It was revised several times, with the most recent done in the year 1999. Essentially, the Rawlsian philosophy approaches justice according to the idea of fairness. The idea is that justice is a complex concept, and it could differ according to individual circumstance. Rawls contended that all of us are ignorant about ourselves and about others and, hence, we are not in a place - in such condition - to determine or apply the principles of justice. These positions allowed Rawls to address two contemporary issues that are equally important, but also tend oppose each other’s views: freedom and equality.
Rawls begins his work by defining the role of the principles of justice “to specify the fair terms of social cooperation. These principles specify the basic rights and duties to be assigned by the main political and social institutions, and they regulate the division of benefits arising from social cooperation and allot the burdens necessary to sustain it.” (7) Through these fair principles of justice, Rawls aims to build a realistic utopia. The two principles of justice he spells out in his work are: “Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all; and
John Rawls most famous work, A Theory of Justice deals with a complex system of rules and principles. It introduces principles of justice to the world, principles which Rawls argues, are meant to create and strengthen equality while remove the inequality which exists within society. These principles are both meant as standalone laws and regulations but they can be joined as well. The main function of the first principle is to ensure the liberty of every individual while the second principle is meant to be the force for the removal of inequality through what Rawls calls distributive justice.
2. How does Rawls understand Justice, and how does he propose that we arrive at two principles of Justice that ought to inform social relations and political institutions? What are his two principles of Justice, and what changes would have to occur in the United States in order for us to adopt
Rawls creates a hypothetical society, via a thought experiment known as the “Veil of Ignorance,” in which all that you knew of yourself is eliminated from your mind to allow you to come to a rational decision on how you would like your society to be organized. Rawls principle is that under a social contract what is right must be the same for everyone. The essence of Rawls' “veil of ignorance” is that it is designed to be a representation of persons purely in their capacity as free and equal moral persons. Out of this experiment Rawls provides us with two basic p...
Sandel’s thinks that the question of distributive justice is where the principles of justice are derived from. He states that Rawls believed that these principles are best derived from a hypothetical contract and that said contract should be carried out behind the veil of ignorance. Rawls then argued that those who are self-interested behind this veil would choose these two principles of justice to structure society: the principle of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. The first principle explains that all jobs and positions should be open to every and any individual regardless of their wealth, level of education, etc while the second regulates inequalities, only permitting those that benefit the worst off. Rawls argued
In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than others and some will hold places of greater importance in society. Rawls’s argument is that to ensure the stability of society the two principles of justice are needed to govern the assignment of rights and regulate the inequality (Rawls 1971, 53). Any infringement of an individuals rights or inequality outside the parameters of the principles of justice are unjust.
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.
With the issue of income inequality becoming more salient in present day politics, it has been argued that the United States is doing little to ensure equality of opportunity. Many economists today point to low levels of intergenerational social and economic mobility as evidence of these trends. Philosopher John Rawls’ second principle of justice states that inequalities can exist in society as long as they improve the general wellbeing of the least well off members of society. However, current inequalities in income and opportunities in the United States have been said to violate Rawls second principle of justice, because of their inability to provide the least well off members of society with an improvement in wellbeing. In this paper, I will delineate the argument underlying Rawls second principle, as well as its background, conditions and requirements and justify why Rawls would be correct to assume that current inequalities in income and opportunity in the United States are unjust in regards to the wellbeing of citizens.
Science and technology are rapidly advancing everyday; in some ways for the better, and in some, for worse. One extremely controversial advance is genetic engineering. As this technology has high potential to do great things, I believe the power genetic engineering is growing out of control. Although society wants to see this concept used to fight disease and illness, enhance people 's lives, and make agriculture more sustainable, there needs to be a point where a line is drawn.
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.
John Rawls is the philosopher who came up with many theories of philosophy during a long time. One of his main works of arts was a book he wrote, A theory of Justice. This book contains his ideas in which the society would be fair and where the people inside the society would benefit as a whole the most they potentially would be able too.