The debate over advanced genetic engineering such as germline intervention brings us directly to the questions popularized by newspaper headlines: Should we ask our scientists to play God? Or, should we ask them to refrain from playing God? The way the questions are posed in the press is usually so superficial as to be misleading. Yet, beneath the superficiality we find a theological issue of some consequence, namely, do we as human beings share with God some responsibility for the ongoing creativity of our world?
The rhetoric that usually employs the phrase, “play God,” is aimed at inhibiting, if not shutting down, certain forms of scientific research and medical therapy. This applies particularly to the field of human genetics and, still more particularly, to the prospect of germline intervention for purposes of human enhancement—that is, the insertion of new gene segments of DNA into sperm or eggs before fertilization or into undifferentiated cells of an early embryo that will be passed on to future generations and may become part of the permanent gene pool. Some scientists and religious spokespersons are putting a chain across the gate to germline enhancement and with a posted sign reading, “Thou shalt not play God.” A Time/CNN poll cites a substantial majority (58%) who believe altering human genes is against the will of God.
Why do critics of genetic research prescribe a new commandment, “Thou shalt not play God”? The answer is that human pride or hubris is dangerous. We have learned from experience that what the Bible says is true: “pride goes before destruction” (Proverbs 16:18). And in our modern era, pride among the natural scientists has taken the form of overestimating our knowledge, of arrogating for science a kind of omniscience that we do not in fact have. Or, to refine it a bit: “playing God” means we confuse the knowledge we do have with the wisdom to decide how to use it. Frequently lacking this wisdom, we falsely assume we possess beneficial scientific knowledge, which then leads to unforeseen consequences, such as the destruction of the ecosphere. Applied to genetic therapy, the commandment against “playing God” implies that the unpredictability of destructive effects on the human gene pool should lead to a proscription against germline intervention.
A related implication of the phrase, “playing God,” is that DNA has come to function in effect as an inviolable sacred, a special province of the divine, that should be off limits to human tampering.
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
As stated in the book, “college students have much to teach about sex” (8). That is because the values, ideologies, and worldviews of the students are representative of greater American culture. Although flawed, hookup culture on American campuses hold the possibility of accepting a culture of inclusivity, care, pleasure, and freedom while also rejecting predatory behavior, racism, classism, and abuse. Dismissing hookup culture all together is blind to the reality that young adults are going to have sex, and since sex is non-negotiable, one’s aim should be to foster open dialogue and critical thought onto a future where everyone enjoys the ability to freely explore sexuality, sex, and gender on their own
In reaction to the media’s numerous stigmas around college hookup culture in recent years, sociologists and psychologists have begun to investigate adolescent and young adult hookups more systematically. In “Is Hooking Up Bad for Young Women?” by Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Laura Hamilton and Paula England, this issue is addressed through a reaction to previous articles from sources on opposite sides. One side of the argument over sexual activity for young women places them at risk of “low self esteem, depression, alcoholism, and eating disorders,” while the other side argues that the underlying issue is the “moral panic over casual sex.” This issue has been seen by many as a “sudden and alarming change in youth sexual culture,” but systematic research has shown that experiences of young women in college
On one hand, Freitas views the lack of Catholic Church teachings on the matter of sexuality and the failure of college admistrators to acknowledge the culture, as factors which undeniably perpetuate the distasteful practice. However, Freitas also views student’s inapt ability to define their own values, and diverge from the perceived popular norms as another major component in the continuation of the hookup culture. Presenting solutions for both issues within her article, Freitas sets about trying to exterminate the hookup culture, thus promoting the return of the romantic relationship to college
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.
Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing god?: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. University of Chicago Press.
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.
Although forty percent of college-aged students report having sexual intercourse once or never, the perception that hookups are prevalent amongst college students leaves individuals feeling pressured to conform to “the norm” (Zimmerman). The term “hookup” is an ambiguous term that can mean any physical behaviour from kissing to more sexual acts that occurs outside of the confines of a clear relationship. Hookups can occur once or repeatedly, but the primary difference between dating and hooking up is that there are fewer emotional expectations and the encounters are based around physical intimacy. It is difficult to ascertain as to what exactly hookups add to the college experience, but when approaching this issue from a sociological perspective, Robert Merton’s theory on manifest and latent functions sheds light on the potential role hooking up plays. Considered to be the intended purposes of college, manifest functions include job networking and technical skills. However, hookup culture is one of the latent- or unintended- functions. College can be viewed as a type of marriage market where students meet potential partners and determine what they do or do not want from a relationship. With more individuals delaying marriage, hooking up furthers this trend in society and also increases the average age for
The hookup culture has become deeply ingrained in the college experience, all across the country students are fulfilling their desires while preserving their autonomy. On the surface the hookup culture doesn’t sound so bad, however, I am going to argue that the hookup culture itself stems from and promulgates problematic societal inequalities. I will develop my claim by first discussing the dominance of the hookup culture and the societal pressure placed on those who don’t want to participate or are unsure about participating in what the culture has to offer. Then, I will illustrate why the general dynamic of the heterosexual hookup is an uneven playing field even for women who actively choose to participate in the hookup culture. Finally,
Genes are, basically, the blueprints of our body which are passed down from generation to generation. Through the exploration of these inherited materials, scientists have ventured into the recent, and rather controversial, field of genetic engineering. It is described as the "artificial modification of the genetic code of a living organism", and involves the "manipulation and alteration of inborn characteristics" by humans (Lanza). Like many other issues, genetic engineering has sparked a heated debate. Some people believe that it has the potential to become the new "miracle tool" of medicine. To others, this new technology borders on the realm of immorality, and is an omen of the danger to come, and are firmly convinced that this human intervention into nature is unethical, and will bring about the destruction of mankind (Lanza).
One of the problems with the hookup culture is that courting and traditional dating has decreased and sexual behavior outside of traditional committed romantic pair-bonds has become increasingly typical and socially acceptable. Monto and Carey use England’s Online College Social Life Survey to point out that “78% of a sample of students from a Northeastern university reported hooking up, with 47.5% of men and 33.3% of women reporting that the experience included intercourse” (Monto and Carey 605). The popular media have claimed that the hookup culture is a widespread phenomenon that has suggested that the traditional romantic date is nearly dead on campuses and has been replaced by casual sexual relationships (607). A decline in traditional dating and courtship practices has occurred on American college campuses (605). As a sexual solution for the demands of college students, hooking up became incorporated into notions of what the college experience should be (Hamilton and Armstrong 604). Students are involved in hookup culture to get experiences in their college lifestyle, and they think that hooking up is fun and nonthreatening without the demands of serious
As the rate of advancements in technology and science continue to grow, ideas that were once viewed as science fiction are now becoming reality. As we collectively advance as a society, ethical dilemmas arise pertaining to scientific advancement, specifically concerning the controversial topic of genetic engineering in humans. Human genetic engineering increasingly causes dissonance between various groups of scientific and religious groups of people in regards to if we should or should not ‘play god’ and attempt to modify humans for the better of the race. First, let’s take a look at what exactly genetic engineering is; according to, yourgenome.org, “Genetic engineering refers to the direct manipulation of DNA to alter an organism’s
Perlman, D., & Sprecher, S. (in press). Sex, Initimacy, and dating in college. In R. D. McAnulty (Ed.), Sex in college. New York, NY: Praeger.
Science has taken another step forward into the future of mankind by empowering parents to give their children the best start possible. We are now presented the opportunity to decide what personality and features we want our kids to have before their even born. Although at first glance, it may seem amazing and feel as if you’re picking the exact candy bar you want at a convenient store. However, are we ready for mankind to play, what some might call “God”? Is messing with the genetic code in our babies morally right? Or is it wrong? These are questions being brought up towards the matter of genetically engineering our babies. Danielle Simmons mentioned in the 2008 Nature Education that “Genes influence health and disease, as well as human traits and behavior”. Well genetic engineering on human genes has been going on for a long period of time now. It has also been performed on babies of women who were having trouble conceiving to prevent birth deficiency and help produce a healthy baby. As time went on, scientist became more precise and accurate in the genetic engineering of human genes (Simmons). Scientist is now able to help parents make their baby exactly the way, they prefer. Now that we are able to engineer the genetic code in humans to this extent, we can now produce a healthier generation that will have our ideal traits and behavior.
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.