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. The author’s both have opposing views regarding the adoption of human enhancement. Sandel argues against human enhancement and believes that our genetic modification will result in the loss of humanities appreciation of natural giftedness. It is his belief that this “drive to mastery” will transform how humanity interprets humility, responsibility and solidarity. Sandel claims as humility gives way, our appreciation for our natural talents and abilities will be lost. Sandel argues that diminishing humility will result in an explosion of personal responsibility, placing the burden of achievement on us instead of human nature. Sandel believes that enhancement will lead to the loss of h... ... middle of paper ... ...pen manner that allows us to perceive the opportunities offered by human enhancement. I disagree with Sandel’s argument that genetic enhancement for its own sake is wrong but is permissible when used in medical context. I find it hypocritical of Sandel to argue against one form of genetic manipulation while favoring another. The subject of human enhancement is too pervasive and offers too many potential benefits to restrict its use. I believe that genetic manipulation and human enhancements are inevitable. I favor an open-minded and morally grounded approach to advances in genetic engineering, only then can we deal with the moral and social ramifications that stem from the conept of human enhancement. Works Cited Bostrom, N. (2005). In Defense of Posthuman Dignity. Bioethics, 19(3), 202-214. Sandel, M. J. (2004, April). The Case Against Perfection. The Atlantic.
In his book, An Imperfect God, Henry Wiencek argues in favor of Washington being the first true president to set the precedent for the emancipation of African-American slaves. Wiencek delves into the evil paradox of how a nation conceived on the principles of liberty and dedicated to the statement that all men are created equal was in a state that still preserved slavery for over seven decades following the construction of the nation. Washington’s grandeur estate at Mount Vernon at its peak had the upkeep of over 300 slaves 126 of which were owned by Washington. First, it must be understood that Washington was raised on slavery receiving ownership of 10 slaves at the age of 11 years old and that Washington was a man of his time. However, it must also be understood that Washington’s business with slavery was in the context of a constrained social and political environment. Weincek maintains that this does not exonerate the fact that Washington maintained slavery however; it does help to quantify the moral shortcoming by which Washington carried until his last year of life.
The use of bioethics to alter one’s physical and mental happiness is portrayed as deceitful to many. This critical analysis evaluates an essay that pledges justification for self-improvement as morally right. The essay, “Bioengineering and Self-Improvement,” was written by Arthur Caplan, professor of bioethics and the University of Pennsylvania and director of Center for Bioethics. As presented in the essay, the author is supports using technology in improving one’s vigor and appearance. In fact, he declares that bioengineering improves one’s self through boosted confidence and self-respect. The author furnishes strong points and his essay is convincing of positive outcomes provided with biotechnology. The author has effectively proven this
Perfection? Can any one person be perfect? Benjamin Franklin believed that he could accomplish this task. Benjamin Franklin was known for being a cognizant and diligent perfectionist. During his lifetime, many people were concerned with correcting themselves of any fault that they may have had. Benjamin Franklin did have an interesting way to proclaim how he, could show everyone how to be perfect. He believes that he can make himself perfect. Even though his ways of being perfect are not the same as everyone else's ideas, he still tries to show them he can be perfect. In his essay "Arriving at Perfection" Benjamin Franklin tries to tell everyone how he will be perfect and how he is going to actually accomplish this task.
Human characteristics have evolved all throughout history and have been manipulated on a global scale through the use of science and technology. Genetic modification is one such process in which contemporary biotechnology techniques are employed to develop specific human characteristics. Despite this, there are a countless number of negative issues related with genetic modification including discrimination, ethical issues and corruption. Hence, genetic modification should not be used to enhance human characteristics.
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.
...cs and New Genetics” the ways that Factor X and human dignity spreads throughout society in the future show that it is the moral responsibility of society to continue to show others respect and dignity. Through the use of the pieces, “Human Dignity and Human Reproductive Cloning” by Steven Malby, “Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues” by Isaac Rabino, and “Gender Differences in the Perception of Genetic Engineering Applied to Human Reproduction”,by Carol L. Napolitano and Oladele A. Ogunseitan, the decline on the amount of human dignity found in today's society as well as the regression in Factor X that can be found today compared to times past and how the increase in genetic engineering has greater caused for even more hurdles, for the spread of human dignity and Factor X to all members of society, to overcome.
World Transhumanist Association. "Genetic Enhancement Can Improve Humanity."Genetic Engineering. Ed. James D. Torr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "The Transhumanism FAQ." 2003. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.
Perfection is much like the lottery; many people will strive for it with the hopes of attaining their ultimate goal, only to realize that reaching it is nearly impossible. However, unlike the lottery, there is not even the slightest chance of winning the final prize. To be completely perfect is an impossible feat, and the more attempts made to reach a status of “perfection”, the more let down a person will be. The quality of complete perfection is unobtainable and unreasonable, yet many cultures and certain groups of people take pride in being known as perfectionists. This reach for the impossible can be seen in the strict code followed by all knights during the feudal time period. Sir Gawain in the late
People should not have access to genetically altering their children because of people’s views on God and their faith, the ethics involving humans, and the possible dangers in tampering with human genes. Although it is many parent’s dream to have the perfect child, or to create a child just the way they want, parents need to realize the reality in genetic engineering. Sometimes a dream should stay a figment of one’s imagination, so reality can go in without the chance of harming an innocent child’s life.
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 practice of bioethics to alter one’s physical and mental happiness is portrayed as deceitful to many. This critical analysis evaluates an essay that pledges justification for self-improvement as morally right. The essay, “Bioengineering and Self-Improvement,” was written by Arthur Caplan, professor of bioethics and the University of Pennsylvania and director of Center for Bioethics. As presented in the essay, the author supports using technology in improving one’s vigor and appearance. In fact, he declares that Bioengineering improves one’s self through boosted confidence and self-respect. The author furnishes strong points and his essay is convincing of positive outcomes provided by biotechnology. The
“Ideas of Perfection and the Ethics of Human Enhancement” discusses human enhancement’s deeper issue - attainable perfection. Johann Roduit, Jan-Christoph Heilinger, and Holger Baumann investigate how human enhancements could affect the future image of an ideal human. They argue that that some base capabilities that are essential for an ideal unenhanced human being can be maximized harmoniously to adapt to an enhanced human being.This article is reliable because The American Journal of Bioethics published this article. However, it does have a bias towards bioliberalism: it argues for the use of human enhancement. The authors have written other articles regarding bioethics together and individually. The authors are all professors at a university
While genetic modification and “designing” raises serious moral and ethical concerns, research continues and will continue to progress in order to advance medical health and treatment, leading to an evolution of acceptance of certain genetically designed traits. The line between what is considered ethical and unethical will blur and shift over time as technology evolves.
Progression is a natural occurrence in human life as well as society. Natural curiosity, coupled with a desire for self improvement, has propelled mankind into the age of science and technology. As society progresses, so, too, does human life continue to advance and improve. Medical advances have allowed humans to overcome disease and illness, and ultimately prolog human life. For example, the success of stem cell research has granted doctors the resources to replace damaged cells and begin to repair severe injuries. The amount of scientific progress making its way into society is astounding. However, eventually the question emerges, how far should these advancements be allowed to continue? And at what point do humans bypass medical need to such advances and begin to strip themselves of their humanity? The question of how far humans should allow science to penetrate the natural makeup of humans is delicate, and not one that will result in an unanimous opinion. Yet, before humans can address this subject, they must question whether or not they have the right to alter nature to any extent.
Tite Kubo once said that “In this world, perfection is an illusion. Regardless of all those who utter the contrary, this is the reality. Obviously mediocre fools will forever lust for perfection and seek it out. However, what meaning is there in perfection? None. Not a bit. ...After perfection there exists nothing higher. Not even room for creation which means there is no room for wisdom or talent either.” As much as I love Tite Kubo, I have to disagree with his statement, I personally believe that everything that we do that is reflected of and upon us is perfect. There is no changing the past, only accepting it in. According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary perfection is defined as “freedom from fault or defect”; according to my own beliefs