Genetic Enhancement - Moral or Immoral?

@show me,

It is one of the vexing moral questions of the millennium. It will tax many great minds and is extremely difficult to answer. Quite apart from the direct moral considerations, there is also the possibility of unintended consequences that might arise from deliberate manipulation of the genetic code. I hope it is a consideration that I will not have to personally enter into.

0 Replies

@show me,

So long as we have sufficient knowledge to prevent any accidental genetic injuries why not artificially select ourselves for preferable traits such as strength and IQ? We're already screwing with nature as it is with our modern medicine keeping people alive well into their 90's.

In any case if we had the means would it not be immoral to sit on our hands and do nothing if we had the power to eliminate or at least minimalize diseases such as taysachs and crippling life long diseases such as downs?

0 Replies

@show me,

show me;140509 wrote:

Do you think that genetic enhancement regarding phenotypes is moral or immoral?
For example, being able to chose your unborn child's hair colour, eye colour, height, or even IQ.

Is it immoral to die your hair, get color changing contacts, and educate your children? If not, why would it be immoral to do that via genetic enhancement?

I think the only question is one of unintended side effects as jeeprs says.

Quote:

In all honestly, I don't think it is immoral when it is "taken with a grain of salt". But when used in extreme ways, then that's when immorality takes place.

Comments?

What extreme ways?

0 Replies

@show me,

Perhaps rather than genetic manipulation to cure down syndrome, it might be advisable for women to stop having children after 30 or 40? Just because they can have them, in rare cases at even older ages, doesn't mean they should. Most of the "genetic problems" that we seem to think we have can be the barometer that points us to those things we are doing that are wrong. Such as mental and physical abnormalities. The have their natural causes and they are the results of something we are doing that is wrong.

Nature has a way of weeding out the abnormal all by itself without man trying to fix it in playing god. Viagra, that was a real cool move? If we can't "get it up" there are good natural reasons for that just as there are for all the things that we think can be "fixed" due to our "meddling" with it. Nature will heal itself and since we are a part of that nature, the same goes for us. We just employ quick fixes so we can see some affects while we can avail ourselves of them without thinking of the long term. It's spooky to imagine all of the damage we caused by the 'birth control pill'? Hmmm?

Life teaches us what not to do. Let's hope that we don't become a disease to nature in a broad sense and she heals herself en masse.

William

1 Reply

@William,

Genetic manipulation in that sense isn't really an unethical procedure because it's consequences are to open the future of the child, but I'm specifically referring to superficial characteristics rather than practical.

---------- Post added 03-17-2010 at 03:13 PM ----------

Jebediah;140580 wrote:

What extreme ways?

Changing the child's height to 8' tall in hopes that their child will become a basketball player. If that's done, then they are narrowing the options the child has for a productive future. If that child does not become a basketball player then that extreme height can cause extreme problems socially, psychologically, and even more so their health (being too tall creates major growth issues)

2 Replies

@show me,

show me;140637 wrote:

Changing the child's height to 8' tall in hopes that their child will become a basketball player. If that's done, then they are narrowing the options the child has for a productive future. If that child does not become a basketball player then that extreme height can cause extreme problems socially, psychologically, and even more so their health (being too tall creates major growth issues)

I see, that's a good point.

0 Replies

@show me,

I'm writing a paper on this topic in which I have chosen to go for the unethical argument because there are more cons than pros.

I personally am all for it, but in light of the way Western Cultures are, most likely this would not change the world for the better, but rather change it for the worse. Creating a "designer" baby can create immense social bias (creating greater inequality between classes and also having this "super baby" to be the ultimate beautiful that you are either lucky to be born with or not), and also it is like playing God, despite my Atheist belief.

0 Replies

@show me,

show me;140637 wrote:

Genetic manipulation in that sense isn't really an unethical procedure because it's consequences are to open the future of the child, but I'm specifically referring to superficial characteristics rather than practical.

---------- Post added 03-17-2010 at 03:13 PM ----------

Changing the child's height to 8' tall in hopes that their child will become a basketball player. If that's done, then they are narrowing the options the child has for a productive future. If that child does not become a basketball player then that extreme height can cause extreme problems socially, psychologically, and even more so their health (being too tall creates major growth issues)

I have no idea what happened here but when I "quoted your post" this second paragraph appeared that was not there when I hit the "quote post" option; just the first paragraph was displayed?

To answer your response, yes it would be nice to develop ways in which those with down could have a better life. It would be even better to eliminate that which caused it to appear to begin with. As far as the second paragraph horrific scenarios can be imagined as to what we would create to do battle in a sports arena for us to wager on? On the same token, let's give them controllable, programmable brains so they can be smart enough to do the hard stuff so the elite can play golf all day for eternity and make wagers. Hey, we got that now! Hell, all it takes is a little money. You can buy a brain to do that.................unless; we are running out of gray matter and machines are the only solution? And you thought the terminator was science fiction? ha!

William

0 Replies

@show me,

Those arguments I find less convincing. "Playing God" is not inherently wrong. It does imply messing about carelessly but that needn't be a feature of genetic inhancement.

The inequality between classes assumes that genetic enhancement will be expensive and stay expensive. Despite the fact that it seems there would be enormous market pressure to create an inexpensive way of doing it.

Why is it bad if the rich get smarter and prettier while the poor don't? Is this different somehow from expensive clothes and private tutors?

2 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;140650 wrote:

Those arguments I find less convincing. "Playing God" is not inherently wrong. It does imply messing about carelessly but that needn't be a feature of genetic inhancement.

The inequality between classes assumes that genetic enhancement will be expensive and stay expensive. Despite the fact that it seems there would be enormous market pressure to create an inexpensive way of doing it.

Why is it bad if the rich get smarter and prettier while the poor don't? Is this different somehow from expensive clothes and private tutors?

Playing God is wrong at the perspective of religion. Although I am not a true believer in God, it does have this hidden implication that what we have or given are somehow the works of nature. One can naturally be born with dark hair and green eyes, which one can argue that it was a creation of God, or it's a product of natural selection. I live in Canada where the summer's are no more than 4 or 5 months and are usually colder than what most want in a summer. Through that, I have fair skin and very light green eyes because these traits have been naturally selected to that our bodies consume more vitamin c (through our skin) and use more light in order to have better vision. My heritage comes from a fair skin and light eye region of the world. I could say this is a God given gift or a product of natural selection (that education provides).

As for the social inequality, in most cases, this procedure will be highly expensive and most likely will because of the specialization it requires, regulation and implementation of the laws in place. If this was to become legal, I can assure you that it would be highly regulated due to the extreme cases that may arise, such as my example above about 8' tall people.
Yes, there are definite inequalities right now, but imagine them becoming greater and more extreme. Private tutors is a bonus for the wealthy, and they have the right to that better education. But when it comes to phenotypes, will the world turn out to be that the upper class are beautiful and poor are ugly, suffering even more before there was this genetic enhancement. If you are poor and have some good traits in you, you have a good chance to change your inherited class and make something of yourself. If there turns out to be a majority in attractiveness in upper class over the lower class, this will create even more difficulty for those that want to better themselves. The upper class attractiveness will be chosen over the lower class attractiveness.

I do see what you mean by the assumption, but who is to say that it will become less expensive and who is to say it won't?

"We do not want parents to love and respect their children less. We do not
want social prejudice against people with disabilities to get worse." This is a quote from Nick Borstorm's journal Human Genetic Enhancemant: A Transhumanistic Perspective

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;140650 wrote:

Those arguments I find less convincing. "Playing God" is not inherently wrong. It does imply messing about carelessly but that needn't be a feature of genetic inhancement.

Playing god? Like a role in a play? What if you don't get your lines exactly right in that depiction? What is it about you that you would like to have genetically enhanced that you don't like. Is there someone out there you would rather be? If you have to be convinced of it then far be it from me to try otherwise. What I offered should have sufficed. What ever your reasons after all they are your reasons. Good luck because this technology will probably be available in your life time. If you choose to put your very being in the hands of these practitioners, be my guest.

We have made a lot of mistakes in our existence and I can understand our desire to "fix" those mistakes. But quick fixes is not the answer; we need to tear those mistakes out by the root.

Jebediah;140650 wrote:

The inequality between classes assumes that genetic enhancement will be expensive and stay expensive. Despite the fact that it seems there would be enormous market pressure to create an inexpensive way of doing it.

Assumes? Hey, that's a great assumption. There are those with money who would kill otherwise if they could live just a little bit longer. Ha, those folks would pay anything and you know, I think it is their money that is funding all this research? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Jebediah;140650 wrote:

Why is it bad if the rich get smarter and prettier while the poor don't? Is this different somehow from expensive clothes and private tutors?

You tell me? Does expensive clothes and tutors make the person what he innately is. Seems more like a disguise than anything else. [/QUOTE]

Hey Jeb, I understand what you are saying and there are many who think the same. As for me, I will take the cards I was dealt and make the most of what they offer me. :a-ok:

William

1 Reply

@William,

show me;140657 wrote:

Playing God is wrong at the perspective of religion. Although I am not a true believer in God, it does have this hidden implication that what we have or given are somehow the works of nature.

But isn't most medicine natural? If someone is born deaf and we give them their hearing back, isn't that like playing god?

Quote:

As for the social inequality, in most cases, this procedure will be highly expensive and most likely will because of the specialization it requires, regulation and implementation of the laws in place.
Yes, there are definite inequalities right now, but imagine them becoming greater and more extreme. Private tutors is a bonus for the wealthy, and they have the right to that better education. But when it comes to phenotypes, will the world turn out to be that the upper class are beautiful and poor are ugly, suffering even more before there was this genetic enhancement.

But how does pushed the rich up push the poor down? They are a small minority and already have an advantage.

Quote:

I do see what you mean by the assumption, but who is to say that it will become less expensive and who is to say it won't?

Isn't that the trend? Cars start out super expensive and only the rich have them, now everyone does. Computers were only for the richest businesses now people carry them in their pockets. Is there an inherent feature of genetic enhancement that would make it unavoidably expensive? Enough to prevent them trying to tap 95% of the market?

It would also be an investment of sorts. You have to factor in the future medical costs that are being avoided.

Quote:

"We do not want parents to love and respect their children less. We do not
want social prejudice against people with disabilities to get worse." This is a quote from Nick Borstorm's journal Human Genetic Enhancemant: A Transhumanistic Perspective

Well yes, we want to cure disabilities. Are parents going to love and respect their children less because rich people have gotten smarter and more attractive? Parental love is pretty unconditional.

William;140691 wrote:

Playing god? Like a role in a play? What if you don't get your lines exactly right in that depiction? What is it about you that you would like to have genetically enhanced that you don't like. Is there someone out there you would rather be?

I agree that getting the lines wrong would be a serious problem. The implication that even getting the lines right would be wrong is what I'm arguing against.

I'd like to live longer and not need contacts I suppose. A more robust immune system.

******************

These kinds of things are good fodder for sci-fi movies Smile

But those movies always come down on the "against" side, because it makes a much better story and because it then serves as a warning or wake up call. They usually overstate it for effect though I find.

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

I agree with you in many ways, for the purpose of this paper I am basically debunking common concerns with genetic enhancement and by doing so I need to bring the concerns out to their fullest in order to make my claims.

Wish me luck? Lol

Ps. I have not even seen gattaca, nor do I plan to Smile

haha

1 Reply

@show me,

show me;140708 wrote:

I agree with you in many ways, for the purpose of this paper I am basically debunking common concerns with genetic enhancement and by doing so I need to bring the concerns out to their fullest in order to make my claims.

Wish me luck? Lol

Ps. I have not even seen gattaca, nor do I plan to haha

My 8th grade science teacher showed it to us 3 times. Don't even ask.

1 Reply

@Jebediah,

Many of the professors in my first year courses mentioned Gattaca at least once throughout the year.
I'm not a huge fan of sci-fi movies since they are always so exaggerated. It's more of bother than a leisurely activity.

0 Replies

@show me,

one very cogent argument against GE is the kinds of things that some people will think are a great idea. Of course when it comes to inventions and so on, reality will have a way of sorting out the bad idea from the good ones. There are things that just don't work out, as the very amusing History of Bad Inventions books will amply demonstrate. When it comes to altering the human genetic code, we don't have quite the same failsafes. It is an area where unintended consequences might have results that aren't even imaginable.

I was thinking the other day, purely hypothetically, what if it turned out that cancer was an inevitable byproduct of evolution? I mean, it might well be - sure looks like it, anyway. I know, very personally, how dreadful cancer is. It is one of the most horrible things in life. But what if 'a cure for cancer' actually involved a fundamental alteration to some other attribute which would subtly alter the nature of the human genetic code in some completely unconnected area? I know that science talks a lot about 'junk DNA' and the genetic code is still immeasurably more complex than the most complex software imaginable.....

0 Replies

@show me,

I think it's going to be tricky if we start picking traits artificially rather than letting "natural selection" do it's thing. I would guess that if given the choice, most parents would boost the IQ of their child. But what if, for example, a society of people with higher IQ ended up being deficient in other kinds of intelligence. (Wiki article on intelligences.) That could be a disaster. I think the diverse mix of personalities and traits might not be as random as it first appears, and tinkering with these things is something that should only be done with a lot of forethought and restraint, both of which are in very short supply in our commercialized society.

Of course I also see the potential benefits, but I'm not sure I have enough faith in our society to think it's going to be a good thing in the long run.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme;140730 wrote:

I think it's going to be tricky if we start picking traits artificially rather than letting "natural selection" do it's thing. run.

Do we not tamper with natural selection already through medicine, environmental and social changes?

2 Replies

@show me,

the whole idea is predicated on the fact the people are well enough informed and correctly motivated to make such momentous choices. Of course in a liberal democracy, the individual, ethically speaking, is the law unto him/herself, so there are many people who will be outraged that I would even say such a thing. Call me a cynic but I don't think the genetic design of the species should be a matter of free choice.

1 Reply

Genetic Enhancement - Moral or Immoral?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know