This essay will be extremely helpful in establishing my argument about genetic engineering and how it might be considered playing God. Lastochkina believes that genetic engineering is not an act of playing God because scientists are using the knowledge that God has given to them (Lastochkina 167). She makes an excellent point and continues to discuss how “me must learn how to embody the right intention” when it comes to genetically modifying human embryos (Lastochkina 168). I will use her argument to look at the positives of genetic engineering. For example, I will describe the positive intentions of genetic engineering and connect it back to Duns Scotus’ idea of doing what is virtuous based on what is right. Both Jones and Lastochkina’s arguments …show more content…
Powell explains that genetic engineering has good intentions. However, it could have severe implications in the future when it comes to genetic diversity and natural evolution of the human race. Powell argues that though it would be extremely difficult to make humans with similar or identical genetic make ups, he believes that genetically modifying humans through genetic engineering could lead to a species of humans that are unable to adapt. Powell states “it is possible that a shrinking sphere of genetic diversity could ultimately diminish the evolvability, or adaptive potential of the human species” (Powell 218). This he argues could create a human race that is unable to change with their environment and will ultimately lead to the demise of the human race rather than the flourishing of …show more content…
According to Duns Scotus “[t]he moral goodness of the act… consists mainly on its conformity with right reason” (Scotus 167). Scotus argues that not all acts have the same reasoning and each situation calls for different reasoning. For Scotus the right reasons are motivated by the love God or the love of others because God loves them. Scotus also talks about the love of God and how God is all powerful. He believes that God cannot do anything that would undermine his own power. The source also states that “the love of God above all is a morally good act” since God is good always (Scotus
One of the particular areas of interest is prenatal genetics. In this field, many new and outstanding innovations have been made. A mother and father can now check for a large array of disorders that could occur in their child; sexual preference has now been shifted from the hands of a higher being to that of someone with a Ph.D.; and in the near future, a couple will possibly be able to choose the physical features of their child, such as hair color, eye color, etc. Scientifically speaking, all of these new options that parents have is amazing. Not only can they have a healthy baby, but one that is going to be stronger, and better looking. Yet, ethically speaking, many people would dislike the “playing” of God. And when it becomes possible to create a perfect child, what will prevent us in society from doing so? The field of genetics in prenatal situations has become very advanced over the past few years, yet many of these advancements have given arise to unethical applications.
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.
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.
Dating all the way back to ancient Greece, Plato raised a challenge by merely asking, “Is it right because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s right?” Nowadays, this simple yet complex question poses a problem to modern day Christians. When understanding this question, you are forced to believe you only have one of two choices to accept. Those being either it is right because God commands it or God commands it because it is right. If it is right because God commands it then anything, specifically evil, could be right. On the other hand, if God commands it because it is right then the standard of goodness is no longer. Both options are hostile to Christianity. However, after further investigation, there is a third option: God’s very nature is the standard of goodness. By closely examining Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, it’s clear that a theist should undoubtedly accept the third option, being that of God’s nature is the standard of goodness.
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
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.
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.
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.
With all factors put into place the potential benefits of perfecting human genetic engineering far outweigh the negatives. A world with genetic engineering is a world that would be advantageous to all who undergo the procedure to positively modify their DNA. A genetically engineered human race will be able to have defeated all genetic mutations and diseases, rid humans of possible illnesses in young and unborn children, create drastically longer lifespans, and provide generations with a high quality of life. Human genetic engineering has progressed more rapidly than projected; according to Stephen Hawking, when human genetic engineering is consummated he hypothesizes, “With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code.”(Hawking). The advancements that genetic engineering will provide for the human race is incredible and we will soon benefit from science and technology more than ever
Human genetic engineering can provide humanity with the capability to construct “designer babies” as well as cure multiple hereditary diseases. This can be accomplished by changing a human’s genotype to produce a desired phenotype. The outcome could cure both birth defects and hereditary diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Human genetic engineering can also allow mankind to permanently remove a mutated gene through embryo screening as well as allow parents to choose the desired traits for their children. Negative outcomes of this technology may include the transmission of harmful diseases and the production of genetic mutations. The benefits of human genetic engineering outweigh the risks by providing mankind with cures to multiple deadly diseases.
To understand the basis of the ethics that Christians live by the Biblical story must be interpreted. The Bible passes judgement on many things that Christians would come into contact with at some point in their lives. These things include cases such as; abortion, contraception, euthanasia and homosexuality. All of which are negatively referred to in the Bible. However authority today views these issues differently because they use secular ethics in conjunction with their decision making. Examples of authority include governments and work places. This is so that a good outcome may be maximized and had by most of a population, known as a Utilitarian approach. It is inevitable that a few will disagree but this number outweighs the good of the plenty. This secular schemed way of thinking can sometimes severely conflict with the ethical interpretation that is put forth in the Bible. Ultimately when Christians follow the Bible’s ethical basis they will gain the reward of their soul ascending to heaven in the afterlife. This is an incentive to follow Christian ...
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.