Some groups think that it is ethically wrong to transfer genes from one species to another species. Kaiser (2008) stated, “This attitude is occasionally grounded in a religious belief that it is not up to humankind to violate boundaries that are set by God” (p.3). This line of thought is referred to as the "Playing-God"-argument (Chadwick, 1989) which states, any modification of nature through the addition of new genes is morally unacceptable according to this argument. The argument does not occur in the Bible, but is based on an analysis of God's will (Straughan, 1996). There is one basic hypothesis of the “Playing-God” argument. This hypothesis states God has drawn up invisible boundaries between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of humans.
The Divine Command theory states that” an act is morally required just because it is commanded by God, and immoral just because God forbids it.” (Lecture Notes pg. 42, slide #2.) This theory says that since God has said that it is something we must do to be good, that we must do it. Many religions believe and live by this saying that “it is the will of God or the Gods”. I truly believe that God has done his work and is still at work and since He did create us, He does know what good and evil is and does have authority to tell us what is good.
the contention that it is in one's own best enthusiasm to carry on as though God exists, subsequent to the likelihood of everlasting discipline in damnation exceeds any point of interest of trusting generally.
As Jack Kevorkian says, “Anytime you interfere with a natural process, you’re playing God”. By that qualification, a great deal of human activity gets simplified to the idea of “playing God”. In Margaret Atwood’s novel, Oryx and Crake, Glenn, better known as Crake, becomes godlike in the sense that he creates products that manipulate natural functions and his own form of people-like creatures, the Crakers. However, Crake is not the only character to engage in godlike activity. The major premise of this novel is the advancement of gene splicing and genetic engineering to the point where scientists are creating hybrids of animals like wolvogs, pigoons, rakunks, and snats. Essentially, through
The ethical issues with this procedure are not rooted in the utilization of non-human elements to aid the procreative process. So why the moral fuss over the McNamara's method of growing embryos? The heart of the issue was the potential risk to the child. Animal diseases, either known or unknown, can easily be transmitted to humans through xenotransplantation (the use of live animal cells, tissues and organs for transplantation)[9]. There is the potential, both in xenotransplantation and in the utilization of animals in the procreation process, of placing humans at major risk of contracting new types of infectious diseases[10]. Clearly the McNamara’s view and attitude towards creating their offspring may not have been the most ethical way but they would have done absolutely everything to have the one thing they wanted in this world: a child. Do we have a right to have a child at all costs? It should be obvious that our rights must be limited for the sake of others, especially when our own actions would endanger the lives of others[11]. Are there ethical limits to our good, God-given desire to reproduce? There are limits to all our good desires, precisely because these desires are given by God to be coordinated with one another according to His specific design for human beings. When we add to this the fact that our God-given desires are mingled with sinful desires, selfish impulses, and fallen drives, the need for limits becomes even more apparent[12].
Edwards' speech, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", is a congitive piece of argument that basis its creates fear in its audience. During the time of the Great Awakening, many Salem Witch Trials imprisioned and killed many. He believed that he could not only convert non-believers, but also give a wake-up call to the ones who have fallen off the tracks. Ed repeatedly talks about people's doom and destruction, but then later on contradicts himself by giving a call to action. Given the setting and circumstances of his time, EdwarsEdwards' speech, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", is an example of an effective argument due to his allusions to the past and polished use of visual imagery, and the audience's susceptibility to fear. to create
The United States is the most powerful nation in the world because of its military economy and culture dominant across the planet.Thus its difficult to imagine 250 years ago America was a group of British colonies hugging the East Coast. When it did Ravel it barely won the war that any reasonable universe that the British would've won the battle. The question to ask is that what if the American Revolution never happen and that if the U.S was still being with the British colony? "The value of such huge, open-ended questions has always been to help people - as they think about the answers - to realize that social development
Genetic engineering is a powerful tool that can be used to accomplish a multitude of tasks. From species population control to ensuring certain traits in a human baby, there isn’t a lot that genetic engineering can’t do. It is becoming more and more acceptable to genetically engineer organisms as our knowledge on the subject grows. There have been experiments manipulating entire ecosystems by introducing a genetically modified organism into it. It’s even possible to change tiny details all the way down to the color eyes a child has. However these developments are not without controversy. Many people claim that changing the genetic make-up of a living being is playing God, and are against it. The works of Kiera Butler, John J. Conley, Ronald Bailey, and Simon Wallace speak on the controversy as well as utility value of genetic engineering.
The problem of evil (the problem of suffering) is an argument against the existence of God
Faust and Adam and Eve. Dr. Frankenstein tried to create a human, with terrible consequences (Guinan 306), Dr. Faust traded his soul with the devil for forbidden knowledge, and Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the tree of knowledge; Good and evil, and were banished from the Garden of Eden. The stories about the two doctors may not be true but it is used to illustrate that some knowledge are not to be tampered with because we may not be well prepared for it. The story of Adam and Eve is true. They tampered with what was forbidden and disrupted the order of nature. It is the same with cloning, if we tampered with cloning, something terrible could go wrong because the technology is unstable. We should at least obey and respect nature, which is part of tradition by banning cloning. From the start children are always produced sexually not through a combination of toxic substances and if we start using toxic substances to reproduce it will disrespectful to nature and tradition.
Many people think that it is a terrible idea to mess with the way God makes children. When one tampers with genes, there is a large amount of embryos that are used to make sure that at least on will turn out the way that the parents want it, and the embryos that are not used are just thrown in the trash; scientists are throwing human life forms in the waste basket just because they didn’t have a certain trait that the parents wanted (Brownlee 31). Another ethical question is whether or not parents own their own off-springs, and if they even have a choice in the genetics of their baby. Some agree that using screenings of the embryo would help take out the chances of having a kid with Down Syndrome, but most think that discarding these embryos causes judgement towards the kids that have different conditions that are not considered normal. Another reason that this doesn’t follow ethics is that the scientists are planning on creating Savior Siblings, and the purpose of them would be to save the life of their sibling that has a lethal disease; most are concerned about the embryos that contain the disease or are not a match to the child that needs saved because they are just discarded with no hesitation. The big problem with gene editing is that it conforms to the ideas that are put upon this generation; it suggests the idea that everyone needs to
Sea ice has significant importance in the northern Arctic. The sea ice is extremely vital for the marine animals that live in this ecosystem. In particular the sea ice allows them to hunt, mate, and travel. The sea ice allows animals such as polar bears to hunt and search for their prey that lives underwater. It helps females and males find mates to grow their population, and lastly the sea ice allows for polar bears to travel from different locations. Another reason for the importance of sea ice is that it helps keep our planet cool particularly through the albedo effect (Kaitlin, 2016). Potential consequences of the melting of the sea ice could have devastating effects of marine animals in the north, and also for our entire planet because
The film God on Trial explores the controversy behind the existence of God and his goodness, in terms of the Jewish people and the Holocaust. One argument that is presented is that God cannot exist because he allowed the suffering of the Jews, despite the covenant that they shared; and if God did exist, then he could not possibly be good for the same reason. The other side of the trial that is presented is that God does exist, suffering is merely a test, and through faith the Jews and the Torah will prevail as shown in history. In actuality, this argument can be summed up in one sentence: God cannot be both all powerful and just. If God were all powerful then He would be able to put an end to suffering, and because he does not, He is not
The belief in Gods has always existed throughout human’s recored history. Whether it be the Greek Gods: Apollo, and Zeus, or the Judeo-Christian God, believed by Christians in modern day society. The belief of God has always existed among humans, however, assuming God does not exist, what explains the cultural evolution of such a false belief, namely religion? I shall argue that the reason this false belief is successful is because it manipulates human nature better than any other belief by these three points: an avoidance of death (the soul), a sense of worth (knowledge), and a sense, or need of belief (faith).
The philosophical arguments presented in this document are not of religious text, nor scientific observation or established fact. Rather the premise of this God proof is bring together and share the various theories on which other God proofs have established foundations. I have heard it quoted that “Philosophy goes where hard science can 't, or won 't. Philosophers have a license to.” Therefore, with this in mind, I attest that it is more than problematic to construct an argument authenticating the unequivocal proof of the existence God. If nothing else this may be food for thought.
Through my claims-making activity, I was given the opportunity to partake in a project concerning one of the most pressing social problems facing our society: sexual assault and domestic abuse. As a part of my behavioral claim, I chose to volunteer with the nationwide organization RAINN (the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network); however, due to certain inconveniences I was not able to complete the training. In the following paragraph, I will explain the volunteering application process, and my solution towards the roadblock that came with not being able to volunteer with RAINN.