More handpicked essays just for you.
The influence of genetic engineering on human society
The influence of genetic engineering on human society
The influence of genetic engineering on human society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Bioengineering and Self-Improvement
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
…show more content…
695). Although he could provide more evidence to back up his statement, he was successful in stating his claim. He goes on to state that, “I don’t find it persuasive that to say you want to be stronger, faster, or smarter makes you vain, unfair, or doomed to be dissatisfied.” (p. 696). Changing your physical or mental well-being does not fabricate you as vain person. That would basically be saying that if you were to pluck your eyebrows then you are vain. Shaving your legs or face, cutting your hair, and showering with scented soap would make you vain as these commodities alter your natural …show more content…
The use of pathos support his judgment in siding with self-improvement. Caplan claims, “If we swallow a cup of coffee or teas every morning as a stimulant, should those who do so all feel morally bad for a while” (p. 695). These simple gestures should make the anti-meliorists rethink their daily life and if they now too are living a life of vain. Caplan highlights this argument with, “That’s not vanity; that’s self-regard” (p. 695). He also smartly uses pathos, not to side against the Bioengineering, but to show how overdoing it can lead to misconceptions about the practice. “I would grant who undergoes her or his twentieth cosmetic-surgery procedure may be abusing the idea of improvement” (p. 694). The word abusing clearly defines the wrongful utilization of self-improvement and provides us with the reasoning as to why people would think that the practice is vain or
We all are unique in a different way; our body is different just like our face color. Thin, fat, thick, or over weight each one of us is different from everyone else, this is what make us individual. By changing your body it’s like taking away your identity and personality. The author suggest that plastic surgery is being done from one women pulled from exactly the same face structure and mostly they all look the same. Most people think when they get cosmetic surgery done they’re becoming in with their own ideas on what they wanted to look like, but if you really think about most people undergo surgery hoping to look better and to look way different that they use to. It is unfortunate because one shouldn’t feel the need or necessary to alter their face or body to look more beautiful or perfect. People should have a surgery to change their inside instead of outside. Most of the things we do are to feel included and to feel like someone is paying some attention to us. Society don’t really pay attention or care about that one fat girl who sits in the cafeteria by her self with a big nose and an ugly face, but that girl with a long hair, a perfect smile, and face structure is one that everyone remember. It is just so unfair and sad that society have to tell us what beautiful and what
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.
...echniques employed are persuasive and subtle, and this allows Carr to take advantage of all emotional arguments at his disposal. In conjunction with sources pertinent to the topic, Carr’s emotional appeals seem to get his audience thinking, and from the article it is easy to agree with the points he has made. Carr’s use of logos and pathos does bring into question his ethos, however. Fortunately, Carr’s ethos should not be questioned, as he has written several books and articles on the topic. This does not excuse his bias, but it does permit him to speak on the topic at hand. Carr definitely presents himself as a strong literary figure, and his views on the internet are reasonable as well as relatable. This combination of ethos, pathos, and logos successfully allows Carr to write as an expert in this field, and his article and thoughts are not to be taken lightly.
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.
In The Case Against Perfection, Sandel warns us of the dangers that genetic engineering, steroids, and hormones poses to society and the natural order. According to Sandel, this type of control, especially in non-medical settings, violates a respect for life that should be ingrained in all of us. Life is something difficult to predict, something that shouldn’t bend to our every single will and desire. Genetic engineering, and the like, presents an egregious violation of this respect. According to Sandel, this violation serves only to reverse the human march of progress. Sandel weaves a well-balanced argument in his book. The issue of eugenic technology is most definitely not black or white. According to him, the aspects of modification can be applied selectively, so long as it doesn’t violate the respect for life society should hold closely.
...ne starts life with an equal chance of health and success. Yet, gene therapy can also be thought of as a straight route towards a dark outlook, where perfection is the first priority, genes are seen as the ultimate puppeteer, and personal freedom to thrive based on one’s self isn’t believed to exist. With the emergence of each new technological discovery comes the emergence of each new ethical debate, and one day, each viewpoint on this momentous issue may be able to find a bit of truth in the other. Eventually, our society may reach a compromise on gene therapy.
Genetic Engineering is an issue that touches upon the most profound ethical issues. When discussing the topic of genetic engineer...
...r, human genetic engineering is not immoral; the failure to use such a technology is truly what is unjust. To negate the resolution is to turn a person away from a possible cure, from a chance to prolong life. I have shown that human genetic engineering can improve the health of the society by both curing disease and prolonging live. Both benefits are worthy goals of any just society. These possible benefits of genetic engineering, those of curing disease and prolonging life, outweigh any possible "side-effects" that may occur with the development of any new technology. But we must remember that we do not rush into any new technology; human genetic engineering will be done carefully as with any technology, so that we may maximize the benefits of such a great gift to society. For these reasons, I affirm the resolution, "Human genetic engineering is morally justified."
In 1913 Teddy Roosevelt, who is considered to be one of the greatest US presidents to serve in office, wrote to the Department of Genetics, “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind [...]. The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity....” (Dykes, 2008, p. 1). What Teddy Roosevelt was referring to was the idea of enhancing the human population. Today genetic enhancement is paired specifically with technology, but throughout history genetic enhancement has been a very popular but controversial topic. It can be dated back to ancient times when men would pick wives who the men felt would reproduce the best offspring. Then genetic enhancement became extremely popular in the 19th century when Charles Darwin brought the idea of natural selection and eugenics to society. And it is taking new leaps today, where technology is being introduced with genetic enhancement. With this new technology scientists and ethicists are having a hard time trying to find an answer of whether or not this new and growing technology of genetic enhancement should be permitted. We, society, need to analyze the situation very carefully and ask ourselves, should genetic enhancement be allowed in society, or should it not?
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
Genetically modifying human beings has the possibility of greatly reducing/completely eradicating disease and could allow for longer lifespans within the near future. However, there are many issues associated with genetic engineering including being misused for ulterior motives and ethical problems. While there is good that can come from genetic engineering, the many detriments associated with it far outweigh the few positive outcomes. In his novel Brave New World, Aldous Huxley’s idea of genetic modification is far more extreme and unethical than any current real world technologies, but if the technology continues to rapidly grow, Huxley’s future may not be that far off from the truth.
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.
What extent should science go to in order to “improve” people’s looks? In the short story, “The Birthmark” by Nathaniel Hawthorne, the birthmark symbolizes morality that every living thing is flawed in some way and perfection can’t be found on earth. Though this is true, people have the right to seek perfection, and what happens after they think they attain it, is their business. The character Aylmer is a scientist, and his wife Georgiana has a small birthmark on her cheek in the shape of a hand that is barely noticeable. Other men find it charming, but Aylmer convinces Georgiana to let him remove the birthmark for his own peace of mind, then she dies. However, despite how freak accident that may seem, today medical practices are safer than they used to be. Science should be allowed to go all the way in order to improve people’s looks because of want, need and to reflect society as a whole.
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.