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
Firstly, the anti-meliorists (people whom believe that the world cannot improve) view those whom seek bioethics as being egotistical. This argues that we should accept ourselves as we were created and not alter who we were subjective to be. Secondly, it is frowned upon to spoil one’s self with these acts of self-improving as one is wanting to be viewed as something more than whom they really are. Some may view it that obtaining satisfaction is only true when you’ve worked hard for it, not by having it handed to you.
According to the author, “not all forms of pleasure have to be earned to be pleasurable” (p. 695). There are some things in life that we automatically inherit and for that anti-merliorists view it as being non legitimate. Caplan counter argues that self-improvement is beneficial to those that struggle with vision problems, skin pigmentations, memory impairment, extra skin, and/or overweight issues just to name a few.
In Caplan’s conclusion, he urges that no one is displeased with their mental or physical accomplishments due to biotechnology help. Building your confidence through a happier you makes life happier as a whole. The only judgment against bioethics is considerable when it is
If Caplan were to provide more convincing details as to why bioengineering is ethical, then his essay would not seem as though he’s torn between if he agrees or not. He puts a lot of thought and information of counter arguments throughout his essay and then backs it up with small statements of being for the situation. This is an essay that needs to be read several times in order to catch which side he is justifying. Caplan should have put more thought into the essay as to how self-improvement makes a person feel more like themselves and alive again. There should be more to show insight on the subject
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 a consequentialist tone of approach, he describes human society having an imbalance between two ideals: the acceptance of oneself as a gift and the strive for perfection. The usage of technology for enhancement purposes pushes us away from the first and more towards the latter. Bioethics’ main principle revolves around the concept of morality, defined by beliefs regarding actions that are often split between being right or wrong in interpretation and character (Vaughn). Sandel upholds to this stance, confronting it with our own ideology that through the pronouncement of terms of biotechnology, we seem to accept more than reject what is brought up in the culture of society, this type of thinking reaffirming our current beliefs of the nature of controversial
Rifkin, Jeremy. "The Ultimate Therapy: Commercial Eugenics on the Eve of the Biotech Century." Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 7th ed. Ed.
If we are not responsible for biotechnology and cloning, human nature can be altered into a new type of “human” or rather we will create something inhuman. Modern day biotechnology and cloning are advancing so quickly that it brings concern to human nature. With the rapid advancements, life may be able to be prolonged for eternity. Some argue that because cloning stem cells is beneficial to humanity, it is ethical.
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...
How far is society willing to advance genetic enhancement technology before it becomes a moral wrong? Medical technology is well on the way to allowing parents to create designer babies, permitting parents to pick physical and internal qualities of unborn children. Due to the advance in technology allowing parents to genetically designer their own child, The American Medical Association (AMA) should create stronger codes of medical ethics and acts imposing limitations. The manipulating with embryos in order to create a parent’s ideal child is morally wrong, and should be against codes of ethics. In order to create a fine line between enhancement that prevents disease and birth defects, and the self-absorbed society that prefers children with little to no flaws; laws of ethics in medical practice need to be implemented. Therefore, with distinguished lines on medical ethics, society will not become divided and unrecognizable due to genetically enhanced humans.
Genetic engineering has been around for many years and is widely used all over the planet. Many people don’t realize that genetic engineering is part of their daily lives and diet. Today, almost 70 percent of processed foods from a grocery store were genetically engineered. Genetic engineering can be in plants, foods, animals, and even humans. Although debates about genetic engineering still exist, many people have accepted due to the health benefits of gene therapy. The lack of knowledge has always tricked people because they only focused on the negative perspective of genetic engineering and not the positive perspective. In this paper, I will be talking about how Genetic engineering is connected to Brave New World, how the history of genetic engineering impacts the world, how genetic engineering works, how people opinions are influenced, how the side effects can be devastating, how the genetic engineering can be beneficial for the society and also how the ethical issues affect people’s perspective.
...es, D. G. "Enhancement: are ethicists excessively influenced by baseless speculations?." Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (02 Dec. 2006): 77-81. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 2 Nov. 2008 .
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.
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.
Morgan, S.Philip, Suzanne Shanahan and Whitney Welsh. "Brave New World: Philosophy, Politics, and Science in Human Biotechnology." Population Council (2005): 127-144.
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
United States. President’s Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness: A Report of the President's Council on Bioethics. New York: Dana Press, 2003. Print.
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.
Bioethics is a reflection of controversial moral choices or decisions pertaining to medical and healthcare fields. There have always been ethical standards in healthcare handed down within each profession. Although ethical decisions of the past were followed without question, bioethics today is constantly debated among those in the medical field, the general public, and those in governmental positions. Technological advances within the last century have opened the door to discussion about the ethics surrounding the last medical and technological advances. The decisions are influenced by culture, religion, philosophy, and personal preference. Bioethical decisions are always open for questioning. It is even possible for issues to be ethical during one decade and upon review, deemed unethical several years later. It is the job of the medical community and the public to question these issues, debate them, and accept or reject them. Although there have been hundreds of people who have influenced bioethics through their technological advances, Sir Robert Edwards’ invitro- fertilization techniques have changed the way many women today can become a mother.