We all have a purpose in this world that is often called destiny or fate; we all have our lives planned out, and there is a time and a place for everything. From the moment we are born to the time we die, everything happens for a reason. However, what would happen if we added life extension? In the context of this essay, life extension is the prolonging of life in which one cannot die from natural causes, where one can do things that are considered impossible in reality. However, with every good outcome there is an adverse outcome and moreover, the negative results tend to outweigh the positive outcomes. For example, outliving the lives of loved ones while they die over time, creates a never ending cycle of pain and regret. Michael J. Sandel, …show more content…
The people that come into your life are there for a reason. They teach you valuable skills and how to adapt to certain situations. People come and go, but why would you not want to go with them when you know you have nothing else to learn; when your time is at its end it time to leave. Without life extension, we begin to lose the value of time and how to appreciate it. Time is valuable, something that can not be bought or recreated. You can not fast forward or reverse back in time; we are told to live in the moment and appreciate the time we can live through. We are all on a ticking time clock, and once our time is up, there is no …show more content…
Professor Sandel in his article, The Case Against Perfection, illustrates the belief that we have the technology to modify and manipulate our genetics. In consequence, if we begin to manipulate our genetics we then want to pursue more extreme measures of life extension. Genetic modification is acknowledged as a drug. A gateway drug to a more severe drug such as life extension. If we begin modifying our appearance, lifestyle, hair etc., all of those small changes make you power-hungry for more. This makes you feel as if you are a God, or that a God is inside you. However, when we have that reassurance that we can fix anything we want about ourselves in order to be happy, we then lose the appreciation of
In the beginning of Death, Nagel presented the question of whether it is a bad thing to die. He furnished two positions on the subject. The first position is that life is all one possesses and to lose life is the greatest loss one can encounter. The second position is that death is a blank, not an unimaginable condition, that has no positive or negative value whatsoever. Stating his aim to be considering whether death is in itself an evil, Nagel clarified that the state of being dead, or nonexistent, is not in itself evil for several reasons. First, death is not an evil that one is able to accumulate more of. A person cannot receive a larger portion of death no matter how long they have been in that state. Secondly, one would not regard temporary life suspension as harmful. In the case of long-term suspended animation or freezing, one can view this as a continuation of their present life. Thirdly, few people regard the long period of time before their birth as a misfortune. From these points, Nagel concluded that humanity does not object to death because it involves indeterminable periods of nonexistence. He then proposed that if death is an evil at all, it can only be because of what it deprives us of, since it has no positive features. He did not, however, agree with the idea that death is bad because it brings an end to all the good things in life. Nagel formulated that if all good and bad life experiences were removed, what i...
Indeed, no person can live forever because our bodies are mortal. Therefore, everyone should seize the chance given in the few years on earth to accomplish his or her desires. Historically, no human has lived past 130 years, except the narrations in the Bible or other religious books. Accordingly, this demonstrates the limited life that humans have, which is prone to a premature end due to diseases, accidents, and calamities. For this reason, the uncertainty of the human life makes it necessary for the people to live each day as their last on earth so that they can strive to perfect the desires, duties, and responsibilities bestowed on them. Furthermore, the completion of the tasks should not be a routine but rather a passion for creating a better environment for the success of
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.
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 his paper “The Makropulos case: reflections on the tedium of immortality” Bernard Williams asserts his central claim that when immortality is feasible it is intolerable; further, it is reasonable to regard death as an evil. He argues his position by utilization of The Makropulos case, or the case of E.M. This character and circumstance is derived from a play by Karel Capek. E.M. is a woman of three hundred and forty two years. She has survived so long due to an immortality draught concocted by her father, a physician, long before the play’s action. E.M. explains her problem with immortality is that her unending life has become incredibly dull, her emotions have become cold and indifferent. She feels that in the end, everything has happened before and life has become unsatisfying. She stops taking the immortality draught and death overtakes her. This invokes the optimistic thought that immortality may be rewarding, if certain desires continue to be satisfied. Williams expands on the idea of these desires, called categorical desires and inherent motivation, but first we should confirm the views of death that make the conversation of immortality desirable.
“The problem with eugenics and genetic engineering is that they represent the one-sided triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion over reverence, of molding over beholding” (Sandel, 2004, p.59).
With the progression of modern biotechnology, there is much contentious debate affecting ongoing developmental affairs. Controversy aligns itself with cautious thoughts on the appropriate amount of enhancement that can be applied before it undermines the “gifted character of human power and achievement (Sandel).” Michael Sandel, author of The Case Against Perfection argues through political discourse that the passion to master all of the science dominion through the use of such technology is largely flawed by our interpretations of perfection.
From designer purses to designer shoes, each one is created single handedly by one person, or the designer. Shaping and molding an item to their specific standards. Through advances in genetic modification scientists have now been able to change, or design an embryotic cell to remove some hereditary genes. Through Richard Hayes’s, Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, and Ronald Green’s, Building Baby from the Genes Up, they both touch on the negative and positives of genetically modifying human traits in an embryotic cell. Hayes’s article is a critique of Greens but also provides many key argumentative point again the use of genetic modification. Having access to the technology and knowledge to provide children with either less of a chance or no changes to receive hereditary diseases like cancer makes the case of using genetic modification
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
As we age, we become more prone to a wide array of diseases, such as cancer and heart disease and treating these diseases most definitely helps us live longer but they do not seem to halt the natural aging process that eventually causes our bodies to weaken and wither away. New research suggests that, like several biological processes, the aging process could also be controlled and this could lead us to live much longer lives. However, commoners and bioethicists alike are often concerned about the bioethical issues pertaining to the life extension phenomena. They argue that the quality of life may be compromised in exchange for longevity and this may be due to intervention in the
Imagine a parent walking into what looks like a conference room. A sheet of paper waits on a table with numerous questions many people wish they had control over. Options such as hair color, skin color, personality traits and other physical appearances are mapped out across the page. When the questions are filled out, a baby appears as he or she was described moments before. The baby is the picture of health, and looks perfect in every way. This scenario seems only to exist in a dream, however, the option to design a child has already become a reality in the near future. Parents may approach a similar scenario every day in the future as if choosing a child’s characteristics were a normal way of life. The use of genetic engineering should not give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans belittling and “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of manipulating human genes.
When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1959, they could not have known that their discovery would one day lead to the possibility of a human factory that is equipped with the capabilities to mass produce perfectly designed, immortal human beings on a laboratory assembly line. Of course, this human factory is not yet possible; genetic technology is still in its infancy, and scientists are forced to spend their days unlocking the secret of human genetics in hopes of uncovering cures for diseases, alleviating suffering, and prolonging life. In the midst of their noble work, scientists still dream of a world—a utopia—inhabited by flawless individuals who have forgotten death and never known suffering. What would become of society if such a utopia existed? How will human life be altered? Leon Kass, in Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, acknowledges genetics technology’s greatness, and applauds it for its invaluable, benevolent contributions to mankind. However, Kass argues that if left to their devises and ambitions, geneticists—with the power of their technology—will steal away society’s most precious asset; genetic technology will rob society of its humanity. Genetic technology can, and will, achieve great things, but unless it is regulated and controlled, the losses will be catastrophic and the costs will far exceed the benefits.
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
All people have probably considered that immortality would be an extremely joyous experience. William Shakespeare’s play Macbeth, tells of the quality of life and how man exerts it; this is in direct comparison with Tomorrow, Tomorrow and Tomorrow, written by Kurt Vaunnegut. Where as he also writes of the quality of life with the implication of immortality by drinking the miracle drink, Anti-Geresone. The insignificance of man from Shakespeare along with the concept of living forever from Vaunegut, draws the question of why would someone not want to die if life was so worthless. Both authors question the quality of life and as a result they express their concern in their writing.
Association Studies” Farber stated that the strategy has been effective for” simple” (Faber 2). It says how it is simple to change your genetics. But, the tradition genetic analysis attempts to directly relate to DNA variation to clinical trials. Why should people with money have access to enhancing genes? It is like football players on steroids to enhance their playing ability. They are changing who they are just to do something better. Modification to humans shouldn’t be allowed. The modification will suffer from ethical imperative. The abilities will have a suffering and knowingly withhold that help. The big picture is that we are genetically altering our genes. That would changing who we are meant to be. Instead of working for that reward, we are just inserting it into us. There is already so much inequality and disparity in the world.