The Ethical Code Of Enhancement Ethics

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.

　　In “The Case Against Perfection”, Sandel points out that parents could improve and choose their child’s muscle strength, growth-hormones, memory and sex. They can select traits for their children and design their own babies. Further, method of in vitro fertilization also make it possible to choose the sex of the child before being born and Sandel claims that it is a kind of sex discrimination. This will lead to a social distinction and creation of two different standards of human beings that Sandel distinguishes as “those with access to enhancement technologies, and those who must make do with their natural capacities”(Sandel 2009). On the other hand, Agar thinks that people should be free to use enhancement

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.

Glannon argues: 1) If genetic enhancements provide individuals with physiological abilities above the baseline, then the procedure is morally wrong. 2) Genetic enhancements provide an individual with physiological function above the established baseline. 3) Thus, genetic enhancements are morally wrong. Genetic enhancements are argued against by citing the possible social ramifications which may result from the disproportionate availability of the procedure. The future which Glannon fears is one which resembles the scenario proposed by the film “GATTACA”. Glannon does however agree with Harris by stating that intervention to cure disease, such as vaccines, is justifiable and not an

In fact, according to Brock, "treatment of disease that restores normal human function is typically and uncontroversially assumed to benefit persons" (pg. 617). I personally agree with Brock's argument, if genetic engineering could restore the autonomy of individuals suffering from diseases or traits that act as constraints on general human function, then it should be supported. In this regard the author depicts the opposite side of the spectrum, a likely venue for perfectly healthy individuals to seek enhancements, past what is typical for humans. It’s questionable whether or not these enhancements would be taken as a form of competitive advantage against other individuals. Personally, I believe that enhancements like these could be detrimental to

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.

The foundations of prinicpilist ethics are: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The trans-human perspective does not directly cross any of these boundaries, however, it may very well set the precedent for unethical practices and systems. The trans-human perspective allows for genetic, pharmaceutical, and technological enhancement to improve human capacities. Developing means for said alterations require heavy funding, so it is feasible to say that those who develop such means will require compensation from those planning to benefit from them. So, unless an alteration is deemed medically necessary by a providing institution (such as healthcare coverage from a government), one must opt to pay privately for these human-enhancing

The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention prior to

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.

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

This paragraph explains that scientific technologies are not permissible if it used for illegitimate or unnecessary means. Ethical frameworks would all agree on rejecting the use of Genetic Enhancement which is used for morally unacceptable purposes to better an individual which already has necessary wellbeing for life.

The morality of genetic enhancement (GE) differs from person to person. The stance Michael J. Sandel’s takes is that eugenics and GE has no morality. He states in his work, “The case against Perfection”, that manipulating ones genes makes one less human; since, humans are not perfect which is what makes one human and by designing a perfect person one is taking away their humanity. He thinks eugenics are morally problematic in the cases of abortion; in which the mother would be free to determine if she would like to abort the baby by looking at its genes for illnesses, physical appearance and sex, this would test and even change ones moral values. Sandel is opposed on the quest of perfection due to the fact that one is not looking at the big picture, human life is a precious gift. He argues that one’s faults and quirks are what makes one unique from the other seven billion people on earth. And if one takes away what makes one who they are and becomes the perfect person there will be no originality since many would want to also become perfect. Imagine how many parents would want their child to become the next Einstein or Shakespeare. The freedom to become one’s own person would be taken away. For example, a boy that was GE to love soccer and no other sport and a boy that gets to pursue whatever he chooses, the other boy never had the opportunity or liberty to choose what sport he would like he was programed to love soccer for the rest of

After the ethical examination of both therapeutic and enhancement gene modification, it can be stated that therapeutic gene modification is a good thing and enhancement gene modification can be a bad thing. But the other issue is where do you draw the line between the two gene modifications. On paper it might seem like a clear cut distinction but take the example of children who use human growth hormone. Assume a child has a medical condition and their treatment stunts their growth, so they are prescribed human growth hormone. The human growth hormone is able to help the child grow to his normal hight thus returning him to the baseline. But now that there is a doctor prescribing human growth hormone, and different parent hear about this treatment

It is simply, I think, attempting to reduce (not eliminate) the harm that certain individuals cause others. We are not trying to say that by undergoing moral bioenhancement you can no longer do what you want to do… unless doing what you want to do involves actions like rape, murder, and genocide (obviously causing harm to others). In that case, okay, you can no longer do what you want to do. Even now that is the case though. If you rape a young child and you are caught you will lose ‘the freedom’ to rape a young child assuming the criminal justice system does its job. In the case of biomedical moral enhancements we are simply attempting to ensure that you never have that freedom in the first place to reduce the fact that you, or others like you, will cause harm to others in