In modern day society with our rapid development of scientific capabilities, Jurgen Habermas raises our awareness on developing biotechnology and human genetic engineering. He brings up a question pertaining not only to morals, but ethics of this newly developed technology. In this section of the book Habermas agrees that although some forms of genetic manipulations are morally acceptable for screening to rule out diseases, some unbalanced influences threaten future humans and the status of authenticity. However, the problematic character is the moral convictions and norms that situates in forms of ‘being’, which are reproduced through the members’ communicative action.
First of all, natality is the production or birth rate of new individuals. Habermas interprets Hannah Arendt that, “every single birth, being invested with hope for something entirely other to come and break the chain of eternal recurrence, is to be seen in the eschatological light of the biblical promise: “a child has been born on to us” (H 58). Eternal recurrence also called eternal return per Nietzsche is the life you now live it and have lived it. Eternal recurrence implies a new morality-cheating life of its death. Each time a child is born, so is a new life history. Unfortunately, natural fate is essential for the capacity of being oneself and so the body doesn't lose its worth and feelings of authenticity. Ultimately, the modified person of a suffered socialized fate would see his “self” slip away and would not be the “author” of the decisions that affect their lives (H 59,60). It is a false belief that humans desire good things (Socrates). “To avoid this, we can achieve continuity of a life history only because we may refer, for establishing the difference between what we are and what happens to us beyond socialization” (H 60).
In addition, the capacity of being oneself or authenticity assumes we are inexchangeable. It is for this “capacity of being oneself” that the “intention of another person” and trading upon our life history through genetic programs might primarily turn out to be disruptive” (H 57). It fails universalizability test. It is like science is playing God and humans are disposable. Birth constitutes a beginning we should and cannot control. “No man could be master of himself, except of God's bounty, he was wise enough already to know where the gift came” (L, Augustine 46).
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
...cs and New Genetics” the ways that Factor X and human dignity spreads throughout society in the future show that it is the moral responsibility of society to continue to show others respect and dignity. 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 and how the increase in genetic engineering has greater caused for even more hurdles, for the spread of human dignity and Factor X to all members of society, to overcome.
Genetic Engineering is an issue that touches upon the most profound ethical issues. When discussing the topic of genetic engineer...
In this paper, I will negatively expose Walter Glannon’s position on the differentially between gene therapy and gene enhancement. His argument fails because gene therapy and genetic enhancement is morally impermissible because its manipulation and destruction of embryos shows disrespect for human life and discrimination against people with disabilities.
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.
defends the argument that humans are not solely defined by their nature or nurture, but by both. The
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
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.
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost each day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
he argues that we are merely a product of our genes and our main purpose in
In their research article, “Genetic modification and genetic determinism”, David B. Resnik and Daniel B. Vorhaus argue that all the nonconsequentialist arguments against genetic modification are faulty because of the assumption that all the traits are strongly genetically determined, which is not the case. Resnik and Vorhaus dispel four arguments against genetic modification one-by-one. The freedom argument represents three claims: genetic modification prevents the person who has been modified from making free choices related to the modified trait, limits the range of behaviors and life plans, and interferes with the person 's ability to make free choices by increasing parental expectations and demands (Resnik & Vorhaus 5). The authors find this argument not convincing, as genes are simply not “powerful” enough to deprive a person of free choice, career and life options. In addition to that, they argue that parental control depends not on genetic procedure itself, but rather on parents’ basic knowledge of what the results of the modification should be. In a similar fashion, the giftedness arguments, which states that “Children are no longer viewed as gifts, but as
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 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.
The ethics of abortion is a topic that establishes arguments that attempt to argue if abortion is morally justified or not. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote a pro- choice piece called “A Defense of Abortion.” In this paper, she presents various arguments that attempt to defend abortion by relating it to the woman carrying the fetus and her right in controlling her body. On the other side of the spectrum, philosopher Don Marquis wrote a pro- life paper called “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” Ultimately, Marquis argues that abortion is immoral with rare exceptions because it is resulting in the deprivation of the fetus’s valuable future. He supports his paper by creating the future-like-ours argument that compares the future of a fetus to the
...a-kind, comes into being. Since we are all unique, we all have a precise and specific “imprinting protocol” which makes us human. Finding our exact “imprint” is “the mystery of the human person” (Cortez, 93). But, “the emergence of higher-level properties and complex systems with novel properties… cannot be comprehensively understood on lower-level terms alone,” affirming that what defines a physical being as being “human,” or what delineates David as a “real boy” is ultimately abstract and unknown (Cortez, 94). It is ultimately up to God.