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. The first argument given for the obligation 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 child that has a condition wherein a simple, cheap dietary supplement must be given so that the child maintains an advanced intellect. ... ... middle of paper ... ...ealth Organization. World Health Organization, 3 September 2007. Web. 4 Apr 2011. . Nordqvist , Christian. "What Is Health? What Does Good Health Mean?." Medical News Today 21 May 2009: n. pag. Web. 1 Apr 2011. . Parens, Erik. "Special Supplement: Is Better Always Good? The Enhancement Project." Hastings Center Report 28.1 (1998): s1-s17. Web. 1 Apr 2011. . Parker, Michael. "The Best Possible Child." Journal of Medical Ethics 33.5 (2007): 279-283. Web. 1 Apr 2011. . 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.
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
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.
Gardner, William. “Can Human Genetic Enhancement be Prohibited” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20.1 (February 1995): 65-85.
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.
In the essays, “Building Baby from the Genes Up” by Ronald M. Green, and “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks” by Richard Hayes, take opposing sides on the issue of altering human genetics. Green argues that, “Knowing more about our genes may actually increase our freedom by helping us understand the biological obstacles-and opportunities- we have to work with” (497). In other words, we can better ourselves and our children if we alter our genetics in order to become a more “perfect” being (496). On the other hand, Hayes says that altering human genetics has no limits. If we were to misuse this technology, we could “exacerbate existing inequalities,” “reinforce existing forms of discrimination,” “undermine the foundation of civil and human rights” and more (500). Overall, if the majority of
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.
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
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.
1. Knudtson, Peter; Suzuki, David T. Genethics, the Clash between the New Genetics and Human Values. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1989.
The author argues that parents have the sole responsibility to decide the future traits of their offsprings while they are still in
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.
Biology is the science of life. Technology uses science to solve problems. Our society has progressed in its understanding of life to the point that we are able to manipulate it on a fundamental level through technology. This has led to profound ethical dilemmas. The movie Gattaca explores some important bioethical issues that are currently the focus of much dispute. The underlying thematic issue presented is the question of the extent to which biologically inherent human potential determines the true potential of a person. Perhaps the most controversial issue in Gattaca is the use of genetic engineering technology in humans to create a more perfect society; this is, essentially, a new method of Eugenics. Another related issue seen in the movie is that of pre-natal selection. Through the use of the same or similar technologies, parents are able to choose the characteristics with which their children will be born.
Burley, Justine, ed. The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 24 September 2001 <http://emedia.netlibrary.com/ reader/reader.asp?product_id=27508>.
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.