Perfection of an Imperfect World Utilitarianism tells us society should be ran on impartiality. Also, that in society justice cannot foreclose the sacrificing the innocent for the good of humanity. I believe in the film Gattaca the happiness or in other the words utility of utilitarianism, of the lives of those deemed invalid was sacrificed. Utilitarianism is also the basic idea that one person’s consciousness is as worthy of consideration as any others. The film Gattaca is about a world where your life is pre-determined by your D.N.A. I will further discuss how the main theme of the film Gattaca, genetic engineering’s role in society, is the root cause of natural fallacy within the new world Gattaca exhibits and does not cure the imperfect world. Then to conclude I will explain how for these same reasons genetic engineering’s use of utilitarian views is a contradiction of utilitarianism. …show more content…
This is the natural fallacy genetic engineering creates in the new world seen in Gattaca. We know this because in the film the main character, Vincent, who uses another man named Jerome Morrow’s D.N.A and identity to rise up the ranks within Gattaca’s staff. He does this because genetic engineering pre-determines every aspect of one’s life that is scientifically possible. This would include diseases, life expectancy, cause of death, jobs/careers you can have and even who you should marry all from a sample of blood given when first born. Vincent’s D.N.A to others deemed him chronically ill, making him invalid, meaning that there would be very little opportunities for him in life; though he felt he can do things just as well as anyone. It is in Gattaca that we can look at genetic engineering as determining one’s instrumental worth to
When one thinks of a society of genetically advanced individuals at first glance it might seem like an advantage, but upon taking a closer look you can see the flaws in these perfect people. The world of Gattaca is superficial and judgmental; the only way to measure the worth of a person is by the wholesomeness of one's blood. They do not know for sure that someone will die or develop a heart condition all they have to work with is a percentage of the chance of it happening. This brands the world of Gattaca as an unfit and inferior world than our own. When a society discriminates against a group of people they lose valuable and productive members of society. In Gattaca the hardest working, most driven person was someone that they thought should
Firstly, a concerning issues related with the enhancement of characteristics through genetic means is discrimination in society. The text “Flowers for Algernon” epitomizes discrimination, where the protagonist Charlie Gordon undergoes a revolutionary change from his mental disability to a genius through an experimental surgery. Following the experiment, his intelligence escalates to a degree such that he progressively becomes isolated from the rest of society. Furthermore, Gordon explains his new intelligence to have “driven a wedge between [him] and all the people [he] once knew and loved” and expresses that “people don’t talk to [him] anymore and it makes [his] job lonely” (insert reference). This reveals a form of discrimination between the upper class and lower class individuals. Likewise, the film “Gattaca” depicts discrimination through the contrast of individual characters. The protagonist Vincent Freeman, is a naturally conceived baby who inherits a “99% probability [of developing] a heart disorder and a subsequent life expectancy of 30.2 years” (insert reference). In contrast, Vincent’s younger brother Anton has been artificially conceived providing him with physical advantages complemented with remarkable ...
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.
In his piece, “Human Dignity”, Francis Fukuyama explores the perception of human dignity in today's society. This perception is defined by what Fukuyama calls “Factor X”. This piece draws attention to how human dignity has been affected recently and its decline as we go into the future. Using the input given by the Dalai Lama in his piece, “Ethics and New Genetics”, the implementing of factor X and human dignity on future generations will be explored. 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. Society's twist on ethics as a result of pop culture and an increase in genetic engineering has caused for the decline in the amount of dignity shown by the members of society and the regression of Factor X to take hold in today's society.
...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.
First, bioethics is basically what it sounds like; bio-, short for biology, which is the study of living things; and ethics being what is right or wrong related to a certain subject. So bioethics pretty much is what is right or wrong about a certain subject in biology. In this case the certain subject is genetics, such as genetic testing and genetic engineering. In the world of Gattaca the bioethics are often strange and backwards. For example, in the movie it states that it is unlawful to hire or not hire someone based on their genetic profile. But no company follows that rule, and one way or another they will find a way to get a sample to test to take an illegal look at ones genes. This by our society’s standards, and even somewhat by Gattaca’s societal standard, is very unethical. It has taken discrimination all the way down to the genetic level. This level of discrimination makes it to where one’s own genetics are a disability. Not to say that genetic testing, or even genetic engineering, is inherently bad. In Gattaca it is very common to have one’s child genetically engineered before conception. In our society this is a very controversial subject. On one hand, one could potentially make their children immune to most diseases, smart, strong, good-looking, and etc. But on the other hand the question arises, is it ethical: morally, biologically, socially, or whatever, to essentially decide what the child will be or who they will be before they are even conceived? Considering that this film was made in 1997, its use of genetic testing and engineering is very
There is always debate over human genetic engineering. Disputes over human genetic engineering concern the means for achieving assumed ends, rather than being a healthy discussion about the ends themselves. This book not only explores how decisions about the ethics of human genetic engineering are made, but also shows how the structure of the debate has led to the technological choices we now face.
...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."
Throughout human history, the way in which we define what is right and wrong has gone through many different transformations. The way we treat our fellow human beings has been altered by war, propaganda, racism and cultural differences. The division of land and power in the middle ages, the crusades, women’s suffrage and slavery are all derived from the ethics of particular cultures and perspectives. By looking at the ethics of previous eras and cultures, I hope to develop a particular ethical standpoint that is fair to all people of all cultures. For me, this is the standpoint that the end justifies the means, otherwise known as utilitarianism.
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
Some objections to my statements above is Eugenics. If genetic engineering were used to stop having children that had some diseases, such as down syndrome, or were deaf, then the use of genetic engineering would soon “eliminate” this grouping of people. For example if someone were having a child but wanted to be screened to see if the fetus was carrying such disease, would the parents decide to abort or to continue with the pregnancy and take care of such child with needs. But if parents wanted to see which embryo has such disease and they only want the healthy ones, would that say something about what they think about people within that community. If parents were to do that they would be seen as parents who are selfish and would not want to care for someone in need because of “how much work it is” or “how expensive” it is in order to care for such child. This is when I believe that genetic engineering should draw the line as to what it used
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.
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.