Germ-line engineering(GLE) is the reason for which we have created so much human developmental progress. Even when not used for medical purposes, GLE is a powerful tool that humans have practiced and mastered for decades that is capable of advancing the human race to parameters that evolution alone could not reach. In the next 1000 words, I will argue that GLE for non-medical purposes is morally obligatory. I will present some objections to my claim, then I will respond to those objections accordingly, ultimately proving that GLE is morally obligatory because we can achieve changes that will not only help humanity, but improve it in drastic ways.
Julian Savulescu (Savulescu) argued that if one has an obligation to treat and prevent diseases,
…show more content…
one must also have an obligation to human genetic enhancements if they promote well-being. We do have an obligation to treat and prevent diseases. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to enhance human beings. According to Savulescu, GLE for non-medical purposes is also morally obligatory. Savulescu believes that what is intrinsically valuable is not health, but well-being (Savulescu 37). He states that health is instrumentally valuable and that it is a means to lead a good life (Savulescu 37). Health is often risked by many humans. Savulescu mentioned that it is “traded in” for well-being (Savulescu 37). For example, a person who smokes is choosing the satisfaction of a 5-minute smoke over the long-term detrimental effects of their health, caused by that momentary pseudo-emotion of bliss and relaxation of smoking a cigarette. Savulescu supports his argument by stating that GLE can help manipulate characteristics that hinder an individual’s best opportunity to a great life (Savulescu 38). For example, a woman that blushes violet in social situations may go to great lengths to avoid any encounter with another human being, in fear of re-experiencing and revealing the hated physical feature once again. This woman underwent surgery to remove the autonomic nerves responsible for the purple discoloration in her cheeks. She then went on to living the best life and increasing her well-being. Savulescu whole-heartedly agrees with this woman’s decision. In the topic of parenting, any good parent will indisputably surrender their life for their children. Those same parents will always choose the obtainable best for their children, which is acceptable, and even admirable. Savulescu argues that if GLE is obtainable and promotes well-being or opportunity, then we should argue in favor of it. Savulescu strongly believes that humanity is rational and when we express interest in wanting to advance humanity by GLE, then we are demonstrating the distinct importance of mankind, which is our rationality (Savulescu 38). Savulescu visualizes GLE as the triumph of rationality over nature because it is the natural progression and expression of our rationality. Michael J Sandel (Sandel) responds to Julian Savulescu’s argument with a heated 22-page article overflowing with evidence that non-medical GLE is not only dangerous and unethical, but also insulting to the human race.
Sandel holds human flourishing as being intrinsically valuable. He believes that we should all work to be our best HUMAN self, and live our best HUMAN life with absolutely no help from the alteration, manipulation, and revision of GLE, unless it is to treat or prevent disease. Sandel supports the thought that GLE undermines humanity. He believes that there are countless and evident problems with non-medical GLE; it is harmful to human nature, it can lead to more complications and side effects, it is at the expense of certain virtues like humility and empathy, GLE destroys appreciation for natural human achievement, and it impedes with the chance to be open to what you are already given. GLE is wrongfully trying to master and dominate human capabilities (Sandel 9). Enhancing humans for the pleasure of unwarranted advances like; muscle enhancements to improve athletic performance, memory enhancement to reverse age-related memory loss that does not cure any disease, height enhancements for parents that want to make their children taller and sex-selection for parents that want to design their babies, are threatening the human capacity to act freely, and prosper from our own blood, sweat and tears (Sandel 9). Sandel believes that the deeper problem with non-medical GLE is that it creates a drive to master nature, only to serve our purpose and desires. This drive neglects and may destroy “an appreciation of the gifted character of human powers and achievements” (Sandel 9). The trouble with GLE is exactly what Savulescu holds intrinsically valuable; maximizing well-being. If GLE for non-medical purposes was acceptable and performed in society, those not enhanced will be deemed worthless and insignificant, and this probability will not maximize
well-being. Sandel compares GLE to eugenic policies and argues that irreparable harm is presented by both (Sandel 14). If parents chose to design their children through GLE then there would be no significant difference between designing children to improve humanity and doing so to gratify consumer preference (Sandel 15). Sandel concludes that GLE is wrong because it represents and encourages hubris and domination, which can directly apply to parenting and to the warped relationship between the parent and the child because GLE robs the parent of their humility and empathy. GLE’s deep failing is the drive mastery instead of an appreciation of what is already given by nature and viewing life a gift.
Shlomo Yitzchaki is one of the most influential rabbis in Jewish history. Born in Troyes, France in 1040, Shlomo Yitzchaki grew up Jewish and learned from his father. When his father died in 1046, Shlomo Yitzchaki lived with his mother until 1057 when he married his wife and joined the Yeshiva of Yaakov Ben-Yakar. Since then he has become a staple in Jewish learning and Jewish history. Today we know him as Rashi. Rashi was and is very influential to Jewish scholars because of the way his commentary spread, the simplicity and variation of his commentary, and the controversy of his method that is still discussed in modern times.
It is a prevailing assumption among both philosophers that having an accurate belief of our self and the world is important. On the topic of free will and moral responsibility, Strawson argues for the pessimist viewpoint while Susan argues for the compatibilist viewpoint.
Michael Sandel is a distinguished political philosopher and a professor at Harvard University. Sandel is best known for his best known for his critique of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice. While he is an acclaimed professor if government, he has also delved deeply into the ethics of biotechnology. At Harvard, Sandel has taught a course called "Ethics, Biotechnology, and the Future of Human Nature" and from 2002 to 2005 he served on the President’s Council on Bioethics (Harvard University Department of Government, 2013). In 2007, Sandel published his book, The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, in which he explains unethical implications biotechnology has and may have in the near future regarding genetic engineering.
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
De Beauvoir explains, that individuals are able to obtain their own personal freedom using two separate factors. In regards to the first factor, De Beauvoir explains, “The individual must at last assume his subjectivity.” (De Beauvoir 16) What I believe De Beauvoir to be saying here is that individuals must be able to see themselves as an independent aspect of their world, something distinct from the other people as well as other things. This explains, in other words, that an individual must see himself or herself as a being, which holds their own personal agency. This individual must also recognize this idea, that they are their own individuals being in themselves.
Julian Savulescu tries to argue on the grounds of Utilitarianism that parents have a moral duty to improve their children’s genetic makeup in the same way that they would improve the child’s “environment” or prevent diseases (The Ethical Life, 443). Julian thinks this is a duty because it will yield the most positive outcomes or consequences. He believes that failure to use genetic enhancements, when a parent has an opportunity to benefit their child, is neglecting the child’s needs which is morally wrong (The Ethical Life, 443). Julian also defends his position by claiming that it would be inconsistent to “train our children to behave well”, but then refuse to seek genetic enhancements for our children so they have the tools to succeed, when
“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”( Douglass). This famous quote epitomizes the philosophies of Frederick Douglass, in which he wanted everyone to be treated with dignity; if everyone was not treated with equality, no one person or property would be safe harm. His experience as a house slave, field slave and ship builder gave him the knowledge to develop into a persuasive speaker and abolitionist. In his narrative, he makes key arguments to white abolitionist and Christians on why slavery should be abolished. The key arguments that Frederick Douglass tries to vindicate are that slavery denies slaves of their identity, slavery is also detrimental for the slave owner, and slavery is ungodly.
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 increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. 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 a 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.
...pen manner that allows us to perceive the opportunities offered by human enhancement. I disagree with Sandel’s argument that genetic enhancement for its own sake is wrong but is permissible when used in medical context. I find it hypocritical of Sandel to argue against one form of genetic manipulation while favoring another. The subject of human enhancement is too pervasive and offers too many potential benefits to restrict its use. I believe that genetic manipulation and human enhancements are inevitable. I favor an open-minded and morally grounded approach to advances in genetic engineering, only then can we deal with the moral and social ramifications that stem from the conept of human enhancement.
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
...ow them to, or give them the means, to be able to have good health. This is a major downfall for both models as they are completely ruling out a basic human need, environment, as having any influence upon a person’s state of health.
...e free of disability or disease. Therefore, any attempt to surpass the normal range of human ability would be considered an enhancement, and not the treatment or prevention of disease. Savulescu’s argument for the moral obligation for enhancement treats the normal range of human abilities as a hindrance to the opportunities that one has to the best life. This is apparent in this statement, “unless there is something special and optimal about our children’s physical, psychological, or cognitive abilities… it would be wrong not to enhance them” (Savulescu 420). To treat the natural range of human capabilities as a hindrance upon an individual’s possibility for the best life is to require the elimination of the natural variance in the human population. It does not follow that the moral obligation to treat and prevent disease entails the obligation to enhance children.
Human genetic engineering has the power to take the human race ahead in the 21st century. With it, we will be able to enhance every aspect of our physical and mental existence. It is crucial that we make the right decisions now, with the needs and wants of future generations in consideration. Genetic enhancement is our next step to a better living experience for everyone, regardless of status. Creating a world where everyone is genetically enhanced and can function at a higher level will transform the future of the human race. After examining the true facts and reasons behind genetic enhancement, it is clear that the human race will benefit greatly. As such, it is important that normal civilians do not disregard these practices as foreign and taboo, but rather encourage scientists in their quest for the ultimate panacea.
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.
In order to fully understand the uses of human enhancement and biotechnology, one must first decipher their purposes. Human enhancement is typically referred to as improving the overall functioning of a human being, both physical and mental. Biotechnology is a process that often results in human enhancement and is often achieved through genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, and cybernetics. Because of their power to completely change the human race, there is a a very fine line when it comes to the proper use of such technological advances. A key point is the difference between this technology’s use for therapeutic purposes as opposed to the