In the essay "Ethics in the New Genetics" by the Dalai Lama, the author states that before biogenetics may continue human beings must hold with them a "moral compass" that will protect all human beings from their fundamental characteristics to be taken away; the Dalai Lama hopes this will create more ethical decisions in the future. Similarly, in "Human Dignity" by Francis Fukuyama, the author examines the rise of human genetics and how it is going down a path that does not consider human essence, or in his words Factor X, as a legitimate attribute to all human beings as these biogenetics continue. The rise of biogenetics will create an unfair advantage to many, including farmers who will find that they must depend entirely on biotech companies
Fukuyama argues that the need for humans full emotional gamut is the most important unique human characteristic and humans will constantly believe they know what are "good" and "bad" emotions. Fukuyama presents the idea of biogenetics being able to take away attributes that are perceived to be "evil", but "in the absence of these human evils there would be no sympathy, compassion, courage, heroism, solidarity, or strength of character."(Fukuyama 202). This becomes an issue because humans have lost respect for those emotions and forget that they are needed for their ethical emotions to be apart of them. Fukuyama coins the term "genetic lottery" which is the wide range of genetic variations that make humans all different, but also makes them all human. Once humans narrow this genetic lottery down, they lose their differences, and now being human will become a narrow definition instead of a unique one. With the rise of new genetics neglecting the idea of human dignity, or what it means to be human, we will see that a hierarchical system ruled by genetically modified people and the oppression that will
In the film “in-valids” were granted less rights than the “valids.” Sounds familiar? In the 1960’s, many protests occurred because of the inequality and brutality against African-Americans, who had their rights taken away from them based on the colour of their skin. Introducing the practice of genetically modifying humans to live up to the ideology of perfection could cause protests, violence, chaos and possibly a repeat of the Civil Rights Movement. Mark Twain (Author) believes humans are the only evil creatures in existence because of our sense of right and wrong.
Eugenics has been an increasingly popular concept in recent films and texts. The presence of eugenics in these films and texts has caused people to believe that eugenics could be helpful in society. The idea that the perfect person can be created or modified is simply irrational. Each individual person’s qualities are created by their surroundings as they grow up. In Always With Us, Howard Horwitz wishes that the eugenics movement in the United States never had gathered steam. The negative aspects of eugenics that Horowitz discusses are noticeable in works such as Gattaca, A Brave New World, and The Blade Runner. The notion that eugenics is a positive for society limits individuals’ potential by predetermining what they can achieve. By predetermining
The more we know about genetics and the building blocks of life the closer we get to being capable of cloning a human. The study of chromosomes and DNA strains has been going on for years. In 1990, the Unites States Government founded the Human Genome Project (HGP). This program was to research and study the estimated 80,000 human genes and determine the sequences of 3 billion DNA molecules. Knowing and being able to examine each sequence could change how humans respond to diseases, viruses, and toxins common to everyday life. With the technology of today the HGP expects to have a blueprint of all human DNA sequences by the spring of 2000. This accomplishment, even though not cloning, presents other new issues for individuals and society. For this reason the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) was brought in to identify and address these issues. They operate to secure the individuals rights to those who contribute DNA samples for studies. The ELSI, being the biggest bioethics program, has to decide on important factors when an individual’s personal DNA is calculated. Such factors would include; who would have access to the information, who controls and protects the information and when to use it? Along with these concerns, the ESLI tries to prepare for the estimated impacts that genetic advances could be responsible for in the near future. The availability of such information is becoming to broad and one needs to be concerned where society is going with it.
Firstly, a concerning issues related with the enhancement of characteristics through genetic means is discrimination in society. The text “Flowers for Algernon” epitomizes discrimination, where the protagonist Charlie Gordon undergoes a revolutionary change from his mental disability to a genius through an experimental surgery. Following the experiment, his intelligence escalates to a degree such that he progressively becomes isolated from the rest of society. Furthermore, Gordon explains his new intelligence to have “driven a wedge between [him] and all the people [he] once knew and loved” and expresses that “people don’t talk to [him] anymore and it makes [his] job lonely” (insert reference). This reveals a form of discrimination between the upper class and lower class individuals. Likewise, the film “Gattaca” depicts discrimination through the contrast of individual characters. The protagonist Vincent Freeman, is a naturally conceived baby who inherits a “99% probability [of developing] a heart disorder and a subsequent life expectancy of 30.2 years” (insert reference). In contrast, Vincent’s younger brother Anton has been artificially conceived providing him with physical advantages complemented with remarkable ...
Eugenics was a proposed way to improve the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of people with desirable genetic characteristics. Higham says, "The dazzling development of modern genetics around 1900 revealed principles of heredity that seemed entirely independent of environmental influences." (Doc 4) In Grant's "Passing of the Great Race", he claims bad gene mixture based upon differences in skin, eye color, and lack of working abilities.
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.
...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.
In this paper, I will argue that genetic therapies should be allowed for diseases and disabilities that cause individuals pain, shorter life spans, and noticeable disadvantages in life. I believe this because everyone deserves to have the most even starting place in life as possible. That is no being should be limited in their life due to diseases and disabilities that can be cured with genetic therapies. I will be basing my argument off the article by “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” by Sara Goering. One objection to genetic therapies is that removing disabilities and diseases might cause humans to lose sympathy towards others and their fragility (332). However, I do not believe this because there are many other events and conditions in society that spark human compassion and sympathy towards others.
When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1959, they could not have known that their discovery would one day lead to the possibility of a human factory that is equipped with the capabilities to mass produce perfectly designed, immortal human beings on a laboratory assembly line. Of course, this human factory is not yet possible; genetic technology is still in its infancy, and scientists are forced to spend their days unlocking the secret of human genetics in hopes of uncovering cures for diseases, alleviating suffering, and prolonging life. In the midst of their noble work, scientists still dream of a world—a utopia—inhabited by flawless individuals who have forgotten death and never known suffering. What would become of society if such a utopia existed? How will human life be altered? Leon Kass, in Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, acknowledges genetics technology’s greatness, and applauds it for its invaluable, benevolent contributions to mankind. However, Kass argues that if left to their devises and ambitions, geneticists—with the power of their technology—will steal away society’s most precious asset; genetic technology will rob society of its humanity. Genetic technology can, and will, achieve great things, but unless it is regulated and controlled, the losses will be catastrophic and the costs will far exceed the benefits.
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
Science and technology are rapidly advancing everyday; in some ways for the better, and in some, for worse. One extremely controversial advance is genetic engineering. As this technology has high potential to do great things, I believe the power genetic engineering is growing out of control. Although society wants to see this concept used to fight disease and illness, enhance people 's lives, and make agriculture more sustainable, there needs to be a point where a line is drawn.
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.
Burley, Justine, ed. The Genetic Revolution and Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 24 September 2001 <http://emedia.netlibrary.com/ reader/reader.asp?product_id=27508>.
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.