Question. In the following passage, Michael Sandel offers an argument against allowing genetic enhancement.
1. Identify the argument and represent it in standard form. (3 marks)
Identify the argument
“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).
Standard form
P1. If genetic engineering could create difference between human class, the molded over beholded
(wilfullness over giftedness).
P2. When people get exposed to genetic engineering it may influence and inspire them which is not legitimate and reasonable, or where some are not exposed to genetic engineering, the resultant
…show more content…
It offers a question that if genetic enhancement of grown-ups or kids starts being utilized, and numerous individuals are chosen or designed or modified later on in future, will this ‘pomposity’ and ‘inhospitality’ increase significantly compared to present world? This supposition as of now exists- - will it truly be more basic or more grounded? We are left to our creation/imagination, and he doesn't help us consider this probability.
In conclusion, his contention about genetic enhancement is shameless because it falsely forms individuals' lives, regularly guiding their fates in bearings that they would not uninhibitedly pick. In this manner, in spite of having an impediment in his case, it speaks to a major infringement of their rights as individuals. In my opinion, Sandel’s claim is plausible that the world with genetic engineering will contain imbalances and inequalities. Hence, it is immoral to accept genetic engineering.
Word Count – 486
References
Sandel, M. J. (2004, 04). THE CASE AGAINST PERFECTION. The Atlantic Monthly,293, 50-54,56-60,62. Retrieved from
However, with genetic engineering this miracle of like is taken and reduced to petty “character creation” picking and choosing what someone else thinks should “make them special”. An unborn child that undergoes genetic treatments in this fashion is known as a designer baby (“Should Parents Be Permitted to Select the Gender of Their Children?”). By picking and choosing the traits of a child these designer babies bear similarities to abortion, choosing to get rid of the original child in favor of a “better” one. It is also unfair to deprive a child of their own life. By removing the element of chance and imputing their own preferences, children become treated more as an extension of their parents than as living beings with their own unique life. Parents could redirect a child’s entire life by imposing their wishes before they are even born, choosing a cookie cutter tall, athletic boy over a girl with her own individual traits, or any other choice that would redirect a child’s
To choose for their children, the world’s wealthy class will soon have options such as tall, pretty, athletic, intelligent, blue eyes, and blonde hair. Occasionally referred to as similar to “the eugenics of Hitler’s Third Reich” (“Designer Babies” n.p.), the new genetics technology is causing differences in people’s opinions, despite altering DNA before implantation is “just around the corner.” (Thadani n.p.). A recent advance in genetically altering embryos coined “designer babies” produces controversy about the morality of this process.
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
“The Remastered Race” is an article written by Brian Alexander a journalist who won the John Bartlow Martin award for Public interest journalism from Northwestern University’s Medill school of Journalism. His work has also appeared in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Esquire and Wired amongst others. The Remastered race is an article about genetic engineering and how to use it to the advantage of humans. Throughout this article, Alexander mentioned different ways Eugenics has evolved from time and how it is still evolving but stated his main concern as to how far geneticist should go in reference to engineering embryos.
Rifkin, Jeremy. "The Ultimate Therapy: Commercial Eugenics on the Eve of the Biotech Century." Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. 7th ed. Ed.
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...
These are things that we can take for granted and if they were taken away, we would surely miss them. Both essays agreed on this point. Baltimore et al informs us that “genome engineering technology offers unparalleled potential for modifying human and nonhuman genomes. In humans, it holds the promise of curing genetic disease, while in other organisms it provides methods to reshape the biosphere for the benefit of the environment and human societies” (par. 1). David Baltimore elaborates on this idea by sharing some other uses of genetic engineering when he says, “many instances of blood disorders, mental problems, and a host of other disabilities are traceable to a malfunctioning gene. It would be a triumph of medicine if the effects of such genes could be countered” (9). It would indeed be a triumph of medicine to be able to not only solve those mysteries, but also permanently modify them so the issue disappears. This does raise the ethical question of whether it is right to make those changes. All of those things are part of the human existence and cause growth as the challenges are faced. The question arises whether we would be taking away part of the human experience, by exterminating a cause of development. On the other hand, if science has the ability to make the lives of the average person better and more productive, would we be cheating ourselves by not allowing that to happen? How can we ensure that science is “safe”, but still allow
With these new boundaries formed, eugenicists began their own “testing”, classifying people as either superior or inferior based on the size of their pocket book or their social connections. Families across the country rushed to be tested and deemed genetically fit, or otherwise...
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. Brave New World is a city that produces mechanical offspring and manipulates science to genetically modify citizens. In the novel, Brave New World, the citizens are all genetically modified.
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.
Science and technology are rapidly advancing everyday; in some ways for the better, and in some, for worse. One extremely controversial advance is genetic engineering. As this technology has high potential to do great things, I believe the power genetic engineering is growing out of control. Although society wants to see this concept used to fight disease and illness, enhance people 's lives, and make agriculture more sustainable, there needs to be a point where a line is drawn.
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.