John Stuart Mill And Utilitarianism

Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central theme. Although each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the goal of people to be better and think for themselves is the main focus. Many philosophers have defined and categorized utilitarianism in different ways. In normative ethics, Jeremy Bentham believes an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness but not just the happiness of a person who performed the action but also everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). Utilitarianism is the view that the morally right action is the action that has the most good (Driver). The foundation of morality in utilitarianism comes from utility or intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). In utilitarianism actions are evaluated by their utility instead of intrinsic properties of the actions (Skorupski 256). Utilitarianism says certain acts are right or wrong in themselves making us perform them or do not do them at all. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation causing obligation to be determined by intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill theory of utilitarianism reveals what is utilitarianism, the morality, proof of validity, and the connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

In Michael Sandel’s book “The Case Against Perfection,” Sandel analyzes and contests the arguments surrounding the use of human genetic enhancement before presenting his own case in opposition to genetic enhancement. In this paper, I will argue that Sandel puts his whole case against perfection into question by failing to consider the similarities between healing and genetic enhancement.

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.

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

Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human

Scientist are researching genetic modification for many reasons. Some people think we are not good enough the way we are, and want to create a ‘perfect’ person. We have been given the ability to learn how to heal sickness and fix wounds with science. However, we have a responsibility to use this information wisely. We have been created with unique gifts and those gifts are important to the enhancement of life. Likewise, while researching about the Author of “The Perfect Stranger”, Amy Sterling Casil, I have discovered that she also has similar feelings about the gifts that we have all been given. We need to consider a few things as we review Casil’s story “The Perfect Stranger”. First, medical advancement is a great thing. Next, we need to make sure we are taking responsible steps while advancing and not creating even more division in our society. And lastly, we need to make sure we don’t lose our diversity and unique qualities. Although, some people believe genetic modification is what we need to better the human race, in actuality genetic modification can be dangerous, because overstepping our boundaries will produce something that is no longer authentic or that is unable to relate on a genuine level.

Despite the few supporters of “Designer Babies”, the notion of genetically enhanced children brings forward many ethical issues. A primary concern of this technology is its use for enhancement purposes. It would be impossible to prevent such use and would thus blur the objectives of gene technology from medical purposes, to the trait selection and enhancement of embryos. It has also been noted that the genetic modification of people mirrors the extremist views of Hitler, who sought to shape the German

Julian Savulescu wrote Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings and in this article he clearly states his position on the issues as well as providing supporting and opposing sides to the matter. He starts off by explaining this issue is focused on biological enhancement and more specifically genetic enhancement. Then the thesis statement is provided, “I want to argue that, far from it’s being merely permissible, we have a moral obligation or moral reason to enhance ourselves and our

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.

How do we apply aged philosophies to present day problems? Like his forefather John Stuart Mill, modern thinker Peter Singer approaches moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree that selflessness can end human suffering. In addition, their views concerning the significance of consequences align; however, they conflict on the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism by accurately recognizing the discrepancy between absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also by considering the intricate concept of motive.

Ronald M. Green who wrote “Building Babies From the Genes Up” has a different opinion to the use of genetic modification. He is saying that “if we understand the genetic causes for diseases we could use the technology to fix the bad gene in the DNA; no one has to suffer from diseases such as dyslexia, or Huntington” (570). Hayes argues that “why should a child struggle with reading difficulties when we could alter the gene responsible for the problem” (570). He said that having more knowledge about our gene could give us more freedom in term of biological obstacles that every new generation faces. He also mentions that genetic modification has worrying social effects, but he says “it will help close the gap in social class”(571). He said that

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.

Biology is the science of life. Technology uses science to solve problems. Our society has progressed in its understanding of life to the point that we are able to manipulate it on a fundamental level through technology. This has led to profound ethical dilemmas. The movie Gattaca explores some important bioethical issues that are currently the focus of much dispute. The underlying thematic issue presented is the question of the extent to which biologically inherent human potential determines the true potential of a person. Perhaps the most controversial issue in Gattaca is the use of genetic engineering technology in humans to create a more perfect society; this is, essentially, a new

On the most surface level, human genetic engineering and human genetic modification are a new and rapidly developing field of science that deals with directly altering the DNA (genetic makeup) of a living human cell. From early science fiction to the present day, taking control of humans’ gen es and directing the flow of evolution has been a subject of debate for many people. Human genetic engineering or HGE tends to bring up thoughts of dystopian futures where altering DNA has unexpectedly resulted in horrible mutant humans that can’t survive and thus the human race perishes, but this is not necessarily the outcome. Since genetic engineering is an emerging field of science, there are still many moral and ethical issues that need to be addressed before continuing research. Atheists and theists both have valid reasons to support / resist the continuation of this field of science. For the purpose of this paper, it will be assumed the reader has a reasonable understanding of the terms atheism, theism, DNA, genes, genome, and how a persons DNA (their genotype) essentially dictates the physical appearance and abilities that person portrays (their phenotype).