Germ-line engineering(GLE) is the reason for which we have created so much human developmental progress. Even when not used for medical purposes, GLE is a powerful tool that humans have practiced and mastered for decades that is capable of advancing the human race to parameters that evolution alone could not reach. In the next 1000 words, I will argue that GLE for non-medical purposes is morally obligatory. I will present some objections to my claim, then I will respond to those objections accordingly, ultimately proving that GLE is morally obligatory because we can achieve changes that will not only help humanity, but improve it in drastic ways. Julian Savulescu (Savulescu) argued that if one has an obligation to treat and prevent diseases, …show more content…
Sandel holds human flourishing as being intrinsically valuable. He believes that we should all work to be our best HUMAN self, and live our best HUMAN life with absolutely no help from the alteration, manipulation, and revision of GLE, unless it is to treat or prevent disease. Sandel supports the thought that GLE undermines humanity. He believes that there are countless and evident problems with non-medical GLE; it is harmful to human nature, it can lead to more complications and side effects, it is at the expense of certain virtues like humility and empathy, GLE destroys appreciation for natural human achievement, and it impedes with the chance to be open to what you are already given. GLE is wrongfully trying to master and dominate human capabilities (Sandel 9). Enhancing humans for the pleasure of unwarranted advances like; muscle enhancements to improve athletic performance, memory enhancement to reverse age-related memory loss that does not cure any disease, height enhancements for parents that want to make their children taller and sex-selection for parents that want to design their babies, are threatening the human capacity to act freely, and prosper from our own blood, sweat and tears (Sandel 9). Sandel believes that the deeper problem with non-medical GLE is that it creates a drive to master nature, only to serve our purpose and desires. This drive neglects and may destroy “an appreciation of the gifted character of human powers and achievements” (Sandel 9). The trouble with GLE is exactly what Savulescu holds intrinsically valuable; maximizing well-being. If GLE for non-medical purposes was acceptable and performed in society, those not enhanced will be deemed worthless and insignificant, and this probability will not maximize
Shlomo Yitzchaki is one of the most influential rabbis in Jewish history. Born in Troyes, France in 1040, Shlomo Yitzchaki grew up Jewish and learned from his father. When his father died in 1046, Shlomo Yitzchaki lived with his mother until 1057 when he married his wife and joined the Yeshiva of Yaakov Ben-Yakar. Since then he has become a staple in Jewish learning and Jewish history. Today we know him as Rashi. Rashi was and is very influential to Jewish scholars because of the way his commentary spread, the simplicity and variation of his commentary, and the controversy of his method that is still discussed in modern times.
It is a prevailing assumption among both philosophers that having an accurate belief of our self and the world is important. On the topic of free will and moral responsibility, Strawson argues for the pessimist viewpoint while Susan argues for the compatibilist viewpoint.
Including scientific research done on the topic and taking the results of previously conducted studies in her article, Elizabeth Svoboda supports her claim that true happiness is love based on scent from her piece titled Scents and Sensibility. Svoboda quotes Rachel Herz, an author of The Scent of Desire, and Randy Thornhill, and evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico to emphasize her stance. Svoboda quotes: “’I’ve always been into smell, but this was different; he really smelled good to me,’” from Herz as an example the claim supported in the environment. The quote: “’But the scent capability is there, and it’s not surprising to find smell capacity in the context on sexual behavior,’” (Thornhill) applies factual evidence
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
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.
De Beauvoir explains, that individuals are able to obtain their own personal freedom using two separate factors. In regards to the first factor, De Beauvoir explains, “The individual must at last assume his subjectivity.” (De Beauvoir 16) What I believe De Beauvoir to be saying here is that individuals must be able to see themselves as an independent aspect of their world, something distinct from the other people as well as other things. This explains, in other words, that an individual must see himself or herself as a being, which holds their own personal agency. This individual must also recognize this idea, that they are their own individuals being in themselves.
Julian Savulescu tries to argue on the grounds of Utilitarianism that parents have a moral duty to improve their children’s genetic makeup in the same way that they would improve the child’s “environment” or prevent diseases (The Ethical Life, 443). Julian thinks this is a duty because it will yield the most positive outcomes or consequences. He believes that failure to use genetic enhancements, when a parent has an opportunity to benefit their child, is neglecting the child’s needs which is morally wrong (The Ethical Life, 443). Julian also defends his position by claiming that it would be inconsistent to “train our children to behave well”, but then refuse to seek genetic enhancements for our children so they have the tools to succeed, when
“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”( Douglass). This famous quote epitomizes the philosophies of Frederick Douglass, in which he wanted everyone to be treated with dignity; if everyone was not treated with equality, no one person or property would be safe harm. His experience as a house slave, field slave and ship builder gave him the knowledge to develop into a persuasive speaker and abolitionist. In his narrative, he makes key arguments to white abolitionist and Christians on why slavery should be abolished. The key arguments that Frederick Douglass tries to vindicate are that slavery denies slaves of their identity, slavery is also detrimental for the slave owner, and slavery is ungodly.
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
...ow them to, or give them the means, to be able to have good health. This is a major downfall for both models as they are completely ruling out a basic human need, environment, as having any influence upon a person’s state of health.
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.
Human genetic engineering has the power to take the human race ahead in the 21st century. With it, we will be able to enhance every aspect of our physical and mental existence. It is crucial that we make the right decisions now, with the needs and wants of future generations in consideration. Genetic enhancement is our next step to a better living experience for everyone, regardless of status. Creating a world where everyone is genetically enhanced and can function at a higher level will transform the future of the human race. After examining the true facts and reasons behind genetic enhancement, it is clear that the human race will benefit greatly. As such, it is important that normal civilians do not disregard these practices as foreign and taboo, but rather encourage scientists in their quest for the ultimate panacea.
Human genetic engineering can provide humanity with the capability to construct “designer babies” as well as cure multiple hereditary diseases. This can be accomplished by changing a human’s genotype to produce a desired phenotype. The outcome could cure both birth defects and hereditary diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Human genetic engineering can also allow mankind to permanently remove a mutated gene through embryo screening as well as allow parents to choose the desired traits for their children. Negative outcomes of this technology may include the transmission of harmful diseases and the production of genetic mutations. The benefits of human genetic engineering outweigh the risks by providing mankind with cures to multiple deadly diseases.
The concepts of human enhancement and biotechnology are fairly new terms in the world of ethics and medicine. These words, although far from being unfamiliar, are not often heard in the medical field except in special cases. However, in the past few years, the research and use of biotechnology is on the rise and becoming more prevalent under certain situations. This week’s reading focuses on the issues of biotechnology in a historical and modern context, yet also addresses the pros and cons of such developments.