Genetic modification, or engineering, has been debated for some time now, and many argue against it for reasons of genome risks and autonomy concerns. Powell and Blackford both support genetic modification, and each speaks for one of the two reasons listed. Powell speaks of how there the gains outweigh the risks, and Blackford tells that there is no concern needed for autonomy in genetically modified children. The article by Powell is the superior article, calling up facts, citing scientific theories, and using logical appeals toward the reader. Blackford, on the other hand, focuses only on the morality of such change using a small combination of facts, psychology as to environmental factors, and engages the reader’s emotions.
Using genetic modification “improves human welfare,” rather than relying on evolution, acts as the main focus of Powell’s article. A quote by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is then used to liken Evolution to that of a “blind watchmaker,” in that natural selection does not care about life, or the quality of the same. It then goes on to say that Evolution as a whole does not tend towards advancement, only survival, and that such a natural system should not limit humanity. Having those facts and a credible quote under his belt, Powell then explains why genetic modification would free humankind from the shackles of natural selection and increase the livelihood of humanity. To do this, he uses a multitude of facts, scientific theories like Evolution and Natural Selection, and through this applies a logical appeal to better approach it as a scientific paper.
A more narrow focus and reasoning than Powell’s article, Blackford’s paper deals only with the morality of genetically engineering a child and...
... middle of paper ...
...ore useful than Blackford’s article. It had much more data to support its thesis, and had a broad range of reasons as to why genetic engineering would better the quality of human life. Blackford’s on the other hand, succeeded in what the author intended to write, to talk about how the autonomy of a child is not affected through genetic modification. Powell’s article would be very useful to other researchers due to its facts, scientific theories, logical appeals, quotes, and sources.
Works Cited
Powell, Russell, PhD, and Allen Buchanan, PhD. "Journal of Medicine and Philosophy." Breaking Evolution's Chains: The Prospect of Deliberate Genetic Modification in Humans. N.p., 17 June 2011. Web. 28 Mar. 2014.
Blackford, Russell, Prof. "Genetically Engineered People Autonomy and Moral Virtue." Politics & the Life Sciences 29.1 (2010): 82-84. EBSCO. Web. 28 Mar. 2014.
A person's individuality begins at conception and develops throughout life. These natural developments can now be changed through genetically engineering a human embryo. Through this process, gender, eye and hair color, height, medical disorders, and many more qualities can be changed. I believe genetically engineering a human embryo is corrupt because it is morally unacceptable, violates the child's rights, and creates an even more divided society.
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.
Human characteristics have evolved all throughout history and have been manipulated on a global scale through the use of science and technology. Genetic modification is one such process in which contemporary biotechnology techniques are employed to develop specific human characteristics. Despite this, there are a countless number of negative issues related with genetic modification including discrimination, ethical issues and corruption. Hence, genetic modification should not be used to enhance human characteristics.
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 order to understand the arguments for and against genetic enhancement, one must first understand what it entails. In 19...
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.
"Eugenics, Genetic Engineering Lite." The Future of Human Evolution. Humans Future, 2010. Web. 14 Feb 2012.
[7] Stock, G., and Campbell, J.. "Engineering the Human Germline: an Exploration of the Science and Ethics of Altering the Genes We Pass to Our Children, New York; Oxford University Press, 2000. back
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.
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
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.
Genetic engineering gives the power to change many aspects of nature and could result in a lot of life-saving and preventative treatments. Today, scientists have a greater understanding of genetics and its role in living organisms. However, if this power is misused, the damage could be very great. Therefore, although genetic engineering is a field that should be explored, it needs to be strictly regulated and tested before being put into widespread use. Genetic engineering has also, opened the door way to biological solutions for world problems, as well as aid for body malfunctions. I think that scientists should indeed stop making genetic engineering for humans, because it will soon prove to be devastating to the human race. It would cause rivalries and tension among different kinds of genetically engineered humans for dominance and power.
As human technological innovation proceeds into the twenty-first century, society is faced with many complex issues. Genetic engineering and cloning, encryption and information security, and advanced weapons technologies are all prominent examples of technological issues that have substantial moral and ethical implications. Genetic engineering in particular is currently a very volatile subject. One important aspect of this field is GMO or Genetically Modified Organisms, which has far-reaching potential to revolutionize modern agriculture. GMO crops are already being developed by many leading biotech companies, and have come under intense scrutiny by society. This is easily understood, however, because there is not much that is more important than how people get fed. Specifically, where their food comes from, and how it is produced. Thus, it is essential that we examine the ethical dilemmas as well as the practical benefits posed by such a powerful technology.