Julian Savulescu's Procreative Beneficence Argument

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 “Ethics and The New Genetics” the Dalai Lama mentions that society lacks a moral compass due to social and economical boundaries with new science and technology. While doing so he discusses unbiased opinions about genetic advancements- medicine, cloning and genetically modified food- in society today, keeping in mind the long-term effects genetic changes have on society as a whole.

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

According to Antonio Regalado, 15% of adults think it would be fine to alter a baby’s genes to make it smarter. However, 46% think it is acceptable to fix a newborn’s genes to reduce the risk of serious illnesses (Doc. 4). The unique thing about the world is that every single person is different. If genetic engineering gets out of hand, it could lead to a “dystopia of superpeople and designer babies for those who can afford it” (Doc. 3). Once altering the genes of humans is feasible, international rules should be made so that diseases from mutated genes can be fixed, but messing with the child’s attributes are illegal. That way, every country’s government can prevent a future dystopia before it

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.

Through studies such as the Human Genome Project, researchers have discovered more information than ever about genes, chromosomes, DNA, and specific medical conditions and diseases. Although, we cannot hold modern medicine responsible for discovering biological markers and treatments for certain medical conditions, historical events such as Buck v. Bell need to be brought into the classroom for students to understand how linking complex human traits and behaviors to heredity is erroneous and may lead to unjustifiable social policies. Human traits and behaviors are more so based upon an individual’s environment rather than the genes an individual inherits. Many historians worry that contemporary economic and social problems can give rise to a new eugenics movement. Given the constant struggle over limited resources, we can expect eugenic proposals to resurface overtime. The story of Carrie Buck provides a point of departure for discussing and understanding multifaceted issues including the understanding of linking traits to certain behavioral aspects, the understanding of the legislative system and court rulings and understanding what decisions and when these decisions should be justifiable to people within society. Providing education on such controversial and political issues to future generations could

Beginning in the late 19th century, eugenics was a social and health reform movement aimed at refining the genetic quality of the human population. Although the apparent goal of the movement was improving the human race, a desire to preserve white middle and upper class power also existed. This is evident in the policies implemented, as the unfit were confined to institutions and stringent marriage laws were established. Even more aggressive measures were applied in the Progressive Era. As immigration increased and the birthrate of Anglo-Americans declined in the 20th century, compulsory sterilization of the unfit was constructed to combat the threatened merit of society.

Nowadays, people will claim that the world is on the verge of scientific revolution that leads to the most controversial idea; genetic engineering of humans. When science technology grows exponentially faster than moral understanding, therein lies the argument between these two aspects. One can argue that genetic engineering is some sort of vast achievement in technology especially in this modern era whereby people live in full of access. However, if we look closely at the impact of this technology towards human beings, genetic engineering has many flaws and ramifications that can be debated thoroughly. Arguments and points of view are explained by Michael J. Sandel, the author of “The Case Against Perfection” and Nicholas Agar, the author of “Liberal Eugenics”.

After perusing the suggested articles, I decided on this article for my journal review because of the many facets of its colorful history in addition to its fascinating, and vastly growing, advancements in the area of eugenics. The imminent debates resulting from the conflicting moral and ethical implications arising from the inception, development and evolution of eugenics past and present are of interest.

In “Pro-Life Philosophy”, Peter Kreeft argues that abortion should be illegal to protect the rights of the weak and innocent. His argument states that 1) it is wrong to deliberately kill an innocent person, 2) an unborn human being is an innocent human person and an abortion is a deliberate killing of that person, therefore, 3) abortion is always wrong. Part of Kreeft’s argument rests on the premise that a fetus is a person, this premise has been highly debated in abortion literature and Kreeft’s argument is weak in light of criticism presented regarding the right to life. Regardless of the truth of this premise, Kreeft’s argument still falls short. Kreeft’s condemnation of all abortions as deliberate killings can be refuted by the definition of an intentional killing and a look at the application of this definition. His argument ultimately does not stand up to criticism.

With increasing developments in biotechnology there are now more choices than ever for prospective parents when they decide to start a family. This induces demand for philosophers and ethicists to analyze the moral pertinence of such practices around the world for a wide range of situations. In this paper, I will present the arguments of Dena Davis against sex selective techniques and the subsequent arguments by Sophia Wong that link sex selection and disability de-selection. I will subsequently evaluate Wong’s extension and its viability within the argument established by Davis and defend my conclusion that it is indeed comparable and equivalent arguments due to the congruence of gender and disability expectations in the United States.

Medical professionals today can screen for certain genetic traits (genetic diseases and sex) with in vitro fertilization and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to obtain a healthy child, and reproductive technology continues to improve. With this in mind, the question arises whether sex selection is ethical. Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that sex selection is moral, based on his ethical principle of Procreative Beneficence: that “couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information” [Savulescu 1]. Savulescu claims

Desirable traits provided in genetic wish list ads are assigned a value hierarchy based on how much money is offered for the trait. Advertisements often outline that donors who are graduates from Ivy League schools or have high SAT scores will receive the highest financial compensation for their egg or sperm (Steinbock, 2004). In this situation the human body’s characteristic of intelligence is being treated as a product to be purchased in order to achieve an ideal child. The human body and characteristics of it are assigning a value hierarchy based on the value the parents believe these characteristics are assigned, intelligence often being seen as a trait with the highest compensation. The way in which prospective parents choose the traits to be published in the ads is referred to as ‘grass-roots eugenics’ as the preferences for gametes are rooted in their own personal values (Tober, 2001). Assigning an economically value to human gametes is wrong as it devalues the inherent dignity and worth of the human race. As opposed to respecting humanity, this process disrespects human beings by reducing them to parts of economic value as opposed to valuing the entire human being as an entity. This violates Immanuel Kant’s view of humanity, which states that human life has an absolute value and humans must be treated as an end itself, not a means to an end (Fisher, 2013, p.12).

However, while all of these reasons might be valid to some parents, they are always people who oppose these modern technologies. Hilary Freeman disagrees. She feels parents would want to be able to choose merely for social reasons. Plus, she values the ideal that “babies are not commodities. They are not born to satisfy our desires or dreams and we cannot dispose of them if they don’t meet our requirements” (2). She feels that there is one and only one condition in which the parents should be able to choose; and this is on the basis of medicinal purposes. If the child is likely to inherit genes for a condition which is harmful to them such as hemophilia or muscular dystrophy. She also adds that wanting a balanced family is a shallow concept. She doesn’t agree with it, or see any value in it.