The blog post that Prof. Zwicker sent to our class earlier about the results of a survey asking people whether they would test their future children for certain genetic traits really raises some interesting questions. According to the survey “many parents said they would want to test for traits like mental retardation (75 percent), blindness (56 percent), deafness (54 percent) and heart disease (52.4 percent) … things like longevity (9.2 percent), tall stature (10.4 percent), and superior intelligence (12.6 percent)”. This certainly suggests that should genetic improvements considered non therapeutic become available they would not be so widely sought by the public, thus greatly limiting the effects to our moral values that genetic enhancements would have. But to what extend is this notion plausible. The post looks at the issue of how “pressure by society” would probably increase the percentage of people, who would like to genetically engineer their babies. The real question is however whether that really is the case.
It is in our nature to try to improve ourselves and everything around us as much as we can. We strive for better understanding, better life style, better control over our lives. Technological progress has definitely enabled us to achieve more and more ability to better ourselves. Genetic “enhancements” as they are called are simply the next logical step to go to. They are part of the healthcare system, providing us with healthier and better lives. Although many implications that genetic enhancements lead to, can be considered morally and ethically wrong at the very least, it is only because we view them through the lens of what we currently consider morally correct. Morality is quite far from being universal and radical changes in the ethics of a society are indeed a common phenomenon in human evolution. We should not worry about what is right and what is wrong since eventually society will figure it out one way or the other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I found your point regarding how "morality is quite far from being universal" quite interesting. I do agree with it to a certain extent, but realistically, I do believe the current society had already established a sense of morality where it is morally inappropriate to enhance (not treat) one individual at the expense of others.
This brings to the other point you raised that questioned whether or not genetic enhancement would create pressure by the society. Although not immediately, genetic enhancement would not only help the group of individuals who elect to be genetically enhanced to rise above the norm, but consequentially shift the norm to the right so that individuals who were not genetically enhanced would be disadvantaged.
Hey Peter, I think this blog post is really interesting. While reading a lot of the literature for class I’ve wanted to express a similar sentiment. Mankind thrives off of innovation, invention, technology, and enhanced control. It also seems very practical that our sense of morality will adapt to accept the new beneficial changes that bio-enhancement would bring. And yet despite my theoretical support for your view point something holds me back.
I think that yes we have controlled everything else, but perhaps when it comes to our children we draw the line somehow intuitively. Just as Singer in his paper calls upon our innate hesitance about bio-enhancement, this same feeling presides very strongly over the issue of designing our children. There is something very base and powerful, instinctual, about the protection of children, the assurance of their safety, their innocence.
Although genetic enhancement does seem like the next “logical” step, our irrational impulses to protect our children form strange, unknown changes, even those we ourselves may like to impose on them, as still governed in our decisions by our emotions, might be too strong to override. Not to mention that to forgo the religious teachings that instruct many of us not to violate the sanctity of new born children, which have tremendous influence and prevalence throughout society’s ethical thinking, would be very difficult.
In response to your points that morality is subject to change and not universal I would have to say they are correct, but that doesn’t mean that moral landscape can be easily dismissed. One would like to say that along with our physical and technological evolution, minus the dark ages, we have also experienced societal and thus moral evolution. Are our developed societies perfect? …No far from it, but I would still like to believe that they have developed in a positive direction just as technology has, in that we attempt to uphold equality and justice, and we value peace. This means that our moral and ethical reservation might carry much more weight than they do at first glance.
And in response to your concept that “societal pressure” initiated by those who do start to genetically enhance their kids could sway the rest of society toward that practice, I would agree that it’s a very likely possibility, but I would like to point out that the opposite scenario is also possible: The majority, believing that non therapeutic genetic enhancement is immoral, could apply enough social pressure in the opposite direction that those in support of non therapeutic enhancement may be coerced into changing their beliefs. Genetically enhanced humans might be discriminated against, hated and feared, or ostracized. If the majority wanted to take decisive action, believing that they have the absolute moral high ground, they could make non therapeutic enhancement illegal.
Finally when you say, “We should not worry about what is right and what is wrong since eventually society will figure it out one way or the other,” this is potentially very dangerous for the simple reason, “what if we can’t figure it out in time?” Potentially we could unknowingly move down a wrong, devastating, and irreversible path.
(P.S. I really did agree with this blog, just playing devils advocate)
sorry should read as "Just as Sandel" not "Just as Singer"
“We should not worry about what is right and what is wrong since eventually society will figure it out one way or the other”.
The above statement made by Peter in his post reminded me off something my college counselor told me while I was waiting for decision letters – “If you worry, worry will worry you!” Of course, my college counselor didn’t expect his trademark line to be used in this context.
Hasn’t society always figured out what is right and what is wrong is one way or another? Every break through in the field of science has been subjected to some form of debate, whether it is organ transplants or abortion. The case of genetic enhancement is going through the same criticism that other discoveries and medical innovations went through.
But perhaps “worrying” is the best thing we can do right now. One thing that “worrying” about what is right and what is wrong would do is to initiate a relevant discussion amongst the different parts of the society. Whilst, it is obvious that a general consensus cannot be expected especially when leading with such delicate issues, dialogue and discussions will bring about openness and a new perspective to the general public.
Post a Comment