More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical/moral issues of artificial intelligence
Gene therapy versus enhancement
Ethical/moral issues of artificial intelligence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
In order to fully argue against Savulescu there must first be a thorough explication of his arguments for the permissibility and obligation of genetic enhancement. The first argument given for the permissibility of genetic enhancement is the postulate of the “Neglectful Parents”. Savulescu considers the case of two types of parents, the neglectful parents, and the lazy parents. The neglectful parents have a chi...
... middle of paper ...
...e free of disability or disease. Therefore, any attempt to surpass the normal range of human ability would be considered an enhancement, and not the treatment or prevention of disease. Savulescu’s argument for the moral obligation for enhancement treats the normal range of human abilities as a hindrance to the opportunities that one has to the best life. This is apparent in this statement, “unless there is something special and optimal about our children’s physical, psychological, or cognitive abilities… it would be wrong not to enhance them” (Savulescu 420). To treat the natural range of human capabilities as a hindrance upon an individual’s possibility for the best life is to require the elimination of the natural variance in the human population. It does not follow that the moral obligation to treat and prevent disease entails the obligation to enhance children.
Many parents do in fact have desires related to their children that with sex selection could come to fruition, however using a child solely as an end seems unreasonable . Savulescu argues that if parents “love their child as an end itself” that any other desires, such as a father wanting a male child because he loves boys that play sports, that sex selection could facilitate would do no harm since it is ok for some of the “means” of having a child to be fulfilled.
The second article I have chosen to evaluate for this topic is The Designer Baby Myth written by Steven Pinker. This article starts off by explaining how many people fear the idea of genetic enhancement. Several citizens are concerned about creating the ultimate inequality or changing human nature itself. Many will say technology in medicine is increasing to the point where genetic improvement is inevitable. Steven presents his position on the matter in his thesis statement; “But when it come to direct genetic enhancement-engineering babies with genes for desirable traits-there are many reasons to be skeptical.” He makes it clear that genetic enrichment is not particularly inevitable or likely in our lifetime. He bases his skepticism around three sources; the limits of futurology, science of behavioral genetics, and human nature.
A person's individuality begins at conception and develops throughout life. These natural developments can now be changed through genetically engineering a human embryo. Through this process, gender, eye and hair color, height, medical disorders, and many more qualities can be changed. I believe genetically engineering a human embryo is corrupt because it is morally unacceptable, violates the child's rights, and creates an even more divided society.
In discussing whether God must create the best world that he can, Robert M. Adams raises the following hypothetical (Adams 1972, 326). Imagine a drug exists which is known to cause severe intellectual disability in any children conceived by a couple who takes it. If a couple desires to raise an intellectually disabled child, takes the drug, and conceives such a child, the challenge is to explain what, if anything, they have done wrong. The problem illustrated by this hypothetical is known as the “non-identity” problem (Benatar 2006, 114). The solution presented by Adams is that the parents have violated the following principle: “It is wrong for human beings to cause, knowingly and voluntarily, the procreation of an offspring of human parents which is notably deficient, by comparison with normal human beings, in mental or physical capacity” (Adams 1972, 330). After discussing whether someone is harmed by the parents’ action, this paper will build on the solution presented by Adams by suggesting two ways of understanding why the couple’s action was wrong – one utilitarian, and one virtue based.
The use of genetic modification in enhancing human characteristics has brought about negative issues, such as discrimination, ethical issues and corruption. With this in mind, genetic modification has benefitted humans immensely; developing the knowledge of the human mind, preventing hereditary diseases and improving the physical attributes of individuals. Nevertheless, the disadvantages surrounding the enhancement of human characteristics through genetic means outweigh the advantages as portrayed by the film and text, “Gattaca” and “Flowers for Algernon” respectively. In conclusion, the enhancement of human characteristics through genetic means should be strictly advocated against.
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
Hemmy Cho, the author of “Enhancing Humans Through Science in Beneficial”, believes that “all people should be able to benefit from important and worthwhile advancements in human technology” (Cho 1). By claiming that enhancing humans through science is beneficial, she is a strong believer that scientist can “select the gender, hair colour, personality, IQ, and eliminate any diseases and 'negative' traits such as anti-social tendencies” (Cho 1). She also thinks that now that we have advances in human technology, we don’t have to rely on evolution, (In this case, evolution is referring to parents passing on genes to the child), parents can choose what traits they want their child to have. Cho makes the point that, “many people feel uncomfortable
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...
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.
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.
In this paper, I will argue that genetic therapies should be allowed for diseases and disabilities that cause individuals pain, shorter life spans, and noticeable disadvantages in life. I believe this because everyone deserves to have the best starting place in life possible. That is, no one should be limited in their life due to diseases and disabilities that can be cured with genetic therapies. I will be basing my argument off the article “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” by Sara Goering. One objection to genetic therapies is that removing disabilities and diseases might cause humans to lose sympathy towards others and their fragility (332).
Julian Savulescu has three main arguments in favor of biological enhancement for children. His first argument is choosing not to enhance is wrong. He talks about neglecting parents and lazy parents. Lazy parents are those who have children that have normal intelligence but refuse to do something that could better their child. Neglecting parents are those who give birth to those with special abilities that need enhancement to maintain, but the parents do not give them the enhancement they need. The choice of the parents to deprive their child of higher intellectual achievement due to enhancement is wrong because they choose to not to allow their children be able to obtain that more desirable state. The only way it is right to not enhance
In their research article, “Genetic modification and genetic determinism”, David B. Resnik and Daniel B. Vorhaus argue that all the nonconsequentialist arguments against genetic modification are faulty because of the assumption that all the traits are strongly genetically determined, which is not the case. Resnik and Vorhaus dispel four arguments against genetic modification one-by-one. The freedom argument represents three claims: genetic modification prevents the person who has been modified from making free choices related to the modified trait, limits the range of behaviors and life plans, and interferes with the person 's ability to make free choices by increasing parental expectations and demands (Resnik & Vorhaus 5). The authors find this argument not convincing, as genes are simply not “powerful” enough to deprive a person of free choice, career and life options. In addition to that, they argue that parental control depends not on genetic procedure itself, but rather on parents’ basic knowledge of what the results of the modification should be. In a similar fashion, the giftedness arguments, which states that “Children are no longer viewed as gifts, but as
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 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.