Genetic Enhancement of a Child’s Memory: A Search for a Private and Public Morality

   The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be

Indeed, from this article we recognize that the children will gain success when everybody encourages their effort and shouldn’t emphasize inborn talent. Effort counts more than innate ability.

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

Humanity is always trying to find a way to make themselves better. In recent news, this has led to a moral debate on weather or not using performance enhancing drugs for sports is morally correct or not. But, what if we had already manipulated the human body to make it better before we were even born? This is what Bill McKibben is referencing in his essay “Designer Genes”, on the morality and the biological arms race that could result when dealing with genetic manipulation and engineering. Though the cat isn’t out of the bag for genetic engineering he references what scientists are doing to skim the fine line that laws and ethics have laid down for us. McKibben’s audience is people who can make laws

In his article Is Gene Therapy a Form of Eugenics, John Harris discusses the concept of Eugenics when it comes to using Gene Therapy. Harris defines Eugenics as adapting to the production of “fine” offspring, or artificially producing offspring to fit certain criteria. He stresses on how this concept should be achieved. His main argument is that we should be in favor of Eugenics when it comes to potentially saving a child from living a potential disabled life. Harris believes that his view is not wrong, but believes that it is a matter of indifference whether we call it Eugenics or not. Harris argues that Gene Therapy is ethically sound, and

I support the guidelines outlined by Kitcher for the use of genetic information because of their responsible and ethical nature. I believe that future generations will benefit as a direct consequence of these guidelines. I shall begin by defining eugenics as the study of human genetics to improve inherited characteristics of the human race by the means of controlled selective breeding.

Contrary to Kitcher’s minimalist model that constrains eugenic decisions only to avoid neurological diseases, Gregory Stock’s position in the debate defends maximalist eugenics in which individuals have total free eugenic decision-making, including enhancement, without any state coercion. He wants readers to accept and adopt such a position by arguing that genetic engineering such as selecting and alternating embryos is an inevitable future and human destiny (7, Stock, CC p.279). For example, if redesigning humans became commonplace, Stock reasons that parents would give their children endowments they desire but could not otherwise obtain and thus further expand life’s possibilities to the next generation (8, Stock, CC p.276). In this society, people’s genes would become an embodiment of their parents’ values and preferences. People would arguably want such endowments since they would view modifications as beneficial in

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

The lazy parents have a child with an intellect in the normal range, but the same dietary supplement would allow the child to achieve an advanced intellect. The lazy parents are in fact lazy, so the child does not receive the supplement, and therefore the child’s intellect remains in the normal range. Savulescu suggests that in the aforementioned cases “diet” be substituted with “biological intervention”. The children in both cases would have had an advanced intellect had the parents “biologically intervened”, but as they did not the children remained normal with regard to their intellect. Savulescu argues that the inaction of the parents is a wrong to their children (Savulescu 420). However, there is a problem with the argument that Savulescu has put forward.

In the first portion of Sandel’s paper titled, The Case Against Perfection, Michael Sandel discussed the moral and ethics debate surrounding the notion of in the future designing our offspring by altering their genes prior to conception. Within his argument, Sandal focuses on four main arguments surrounding the following realms of enhancement: muscles, memory, growth hormone treatment, and reproductive technologies (Sandel 52). Firstly, Sandel argues that genetic modifications in improving muscles whether it be to aid in the elderly population, a majority whom struggle with immobility and must rely upon medical devices such as wheelchairs, walkers, or are restricted to their homes and consequently often have a decreased quality of life.

The technology is used to help humans overcome the physical and/ or mental limitations of the human body, resulting in the temporary or permanent augmentation of a person's abilities and features. In the piece, “The Case Against Perfection,” Michael J. Sandel argues that genetic enhancement is morally questionable. I will argue why his reasoning, more specifically his defense of “the giftedness of life,” is irrational. In this essay, I will explain Sandel’s moral objection against genetic enhancement, argue that his idea of “giftedness” is not as valuable as he states, and finally consider why my argument could be seen as fallible.

Not only will parents’ have an unnatural control on their children, but humanity will change. Parents’ ability to choose whether their child develops strong athletic abilities, musical talents, or cognitive abilities will cause an unnatural humanity. Because all parents’ will have this authority, all children will develop these skills and the humanity will have a new “norm.” Therefore, excelling in these skills will appear normal and as if nothing ever changed. Advancements in genetic engineering cause an unnatural authority for parents’ to design their

John Rawls wrote several highly influential articles in the 19950`s and 1960`s, his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political Liberalism [PL] (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively permanent “reasonable pluralism” of religious, philosophical, and other comprehensive doctrines or worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that pluralism. (Richardson)

Michael Sandel offers an analysis of the utilitarian concept in his book, Justice. In this book, Sandel offers an example of a situation that compares the two versions of utilitarianism: in a community, a large group of people is protesting against a certain religion that a smaller portion of that community practices. In this situation, Bentham would advocate abolishing that religion in order to enhance utility. However, Mill would argue that in the long run, it would be harmful towards that community to suppress any attempts of individuality. It would be a wiser course of action to respect the individual liberties of each person. Although Bentham’s policy is more consistent because it has a sturdier moral basis, Mill’s version of utilitarianism is more humane because it incorporates the aspect of individual liberties. Altogether, both ideas focus on the welfare of the society as a whole.