Need help with assignments?
Our qualified writers can create original, plagiarism-free papers in any format you choose (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, etc.)
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Click Here To Order Now
Explain Kitchers proposed factors for assessing humans chances for a reasonable quality of life, and the sorts of genetic dis
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
Human and Biology
Part A: Explain Kitcher’s proposed factors for assessing humans’ chances for a reasonable quality of life, the sorts of genetic diseases that prevent it, and responsible or enlightened eugenic decision-making.
Eugenics or genetic modification is a medical field that has raised various social and ethical concerns since its adoption. Nevertheless, it can not be disputed that it is fundamental in enhancing the quality of life of individual through timely elimination of diseases. Its scope has been widened over time to incorporate genetic engineering and creation of individuals with ideal personalities. The most common ethical concern in this regard has been related to commoditization of humans. In his research, Kitcher contends that parental free choice should be employed on a minimal scale and only when it is absolutely necessary (161). He cites that parental free choice is likely to culminate in various social and ethical problems (Kitcher 133). These include the probability of reduction of biological diversity as individuals will tend to entirely prefer the most ideal traits and as well as the possibility of reinforcing racism and widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.
In his research, Kitcher advocates for enhancement of the quality of life of individuals and argues that this should be at the center stage of all forms of decisions (154). He contends that it is based on the ethical principle of beneficence and therefore stipulates that measures need to be undertaken to enhance the quality of the future of life and eliminate possible diseases that could compromise this. To begin with, this can be achieved through the process of genetic testing and screening. This seeks to identify defective genes that could contribute to defects in future and if possible make alterations accordingly. If it is impossible, it opts for selective abortion. Another option that can be used to prevent individuals from being born with genetic defects is pre-implantation selection that employs fetuses that have ideal characteristics (Kitcher 156). Reproductive decisions are influenced by the nature of resource distribution. Notably, this determines the medical decisions that are adopted by the affected individuals.
Kitcher contends that decision making with regards to parental choice needs to be based on credible information and enlightenment (Kitcher 243). This can be achieved through public education and awareness creation. Credible information in this respect needs to be relayed to the public to enable them make personal and informed decisions out of free will rather than coercion. At this juncture, it is worth acknowledging that medical decisions in this regard can have far reaching implication on the health of the individuals. In addition, they are expensive and require significant resources for successful operation. In this regard therefore, it is vital for the decision making process to be devoid of any complexities. Indeed sufficient knowledge needs to be availed to the affected parties. The main goal according to him needs to be to enhance the quality of life of an individual while allowing for freedom with regard to decision making. Fundamental knowledge would enable the concerned individuals to make viable choices that would help them attain this important goal.
Part B: Explain Stock’s position of maximalist (Stock’s article “The Enhanced and the Un-Enhanced”) eugenics and how it differs from Kitcher’s minimalist eugenics.
In his review, Stock assumes a different perception of the role of technology in reproduction. He argues that there should be no limits with regard to the types of genes that should be employed in manipulating the genetic make up of humans in order to come up with ideal characteristics. According to him, the relevant bodies should allow for the wide spread utilization of a variety of genes in order to attain an enhanced status of human wellbeing (Stock 56). He indicates that use of technology in genetics is inevitable because it seeks to address the needs and requirements of the dynamic world.
In this respect, he indicates that the world is increasingly changing and in the near future, humans would be compelled to use the technology in order for them to address the relative problems with ease. Further. Stock affirms that technology is an intrinsic aspect of human wellbeing that needs to be incorporated in their lives (58). Over time, it has been employed in various activities that seek to improve the quality of life of humans. Most importantly, it was invented and developed by humans and therefore it needs to be employed for human benefit. It is in this consideration that stock justifies the use of technology and argues that it does not need to raise any concerns (Stock 65).
From his analysis, it can be ascertained that Stock can make varied changes to the position assumed by Kitcher. One possible challenge would be the inability of Kitcher to fully explore the possibilities that are provided by the technology to enhance the wellbeing of humanity. In addition, Stock can challenge the position of Kitcher by highlighting that his failure to utilize all the genetic options has contributed to the creation of individuals that can not cope with the daily challenges with ease. This could be based on the realization that more than ever, global dynamism is presenting various challenges that require executive functioning of human beings.
On the other hand Kitcher could challenge the position of Stock with reference to failing to consider vital ethical concerns that govern the interaction and holistic wellbeing of humanity (Kitcher 118). In this regard, it can be argued that he approach that is assumed by Stock is likely to culminate in social conflicts and threaten social cohesion that is fundamental for growth and development. In addition, Kitcher could challenge stock by indicating that his approach is likely to lead to loss and possible extinction of genetic diversity. This is likely to result in low immunity and threaten the survival of humanity as they would lack fundamental immunity against diseases.
From the analysis, it is certain that the approach that is assumed by Kitcher regarding eugenic decision making is more logical that that assumed by his counterpart, Stock. To begin with, it should be acknowledged that technology is not the only aspect that influences human behavior regardless of the fact that it has numerous advantages that would enhance the wellbeing of the same. Humanity should be understood to be a complex conception that is influenced by a host of factors that are social, economic and cultural in nature. Since technology has been invented recently, it has to be mainstreamed in the system rather than control the same.
In addition, it would be imperative to mainstream rather than impose technology in order to enhance sustainability. This is defined by acceptance of the technology by the population and it goes a long way in enhancing effectiveness of the same. Notably, Kitcher fulfills these conditions by enlightening the community on the implications of the same before allowing them to make personal and informed decisions regarding the employment of eugenics (Kitcher 243). At this point in time, it can be contended that Kitchre’s approach is more viable and would be more beneficial to humanity than Stock’s.
Part C: The essay by Michael Sandel (“The Case against Perfection”) raises disturbing ethical problems concerning a society that involves extensive eugenic decision-making.
In his analysis, Sandel contends that genetic engineering has adverse implications on the wellbeing of humanity. He cites the example of athletics and argues that this is likely to culminate in unfair competition with the “real” human beings (Sandel 34). This is because of the fact that the enhance humans have superb characteristics that make them perfect and therefore more competitive in the society. It would further widen the gap between the rich and the poor as those who can afford these services would have an upper hand in social and economic prosperity. This disadvantages the nature humans as they are relatively less competitive because of natural defects.
In addition, Sandel indicates that this would significantly shift the responsibilities of parents with regard to reproduction (44). Instead of utilizing chance to come up with ideal off springs, they would be charged with the responsibility of choosing the ideal children. As such, they would be liable to punishment whenever they make wrong choices. Further, Mandel also notes that the procedure makes an individual less human because the natural characteristics that define humanity are eliminated (51).
I think to a certain extent, the preposition presented by Sandel are misinformed and therefore culminate in an unfair judgment of eugenics. As indicated earlier, it is worth acknowledging that he current world is characterized by a great degree of dynamism that requires humanity to assume viable characteristics in order to function effectively. Indeed, the challenges being presented currently are wide and varied and can only be effectively addressed through multi faceted approaches. Current human qualities are definite in nature and this prevents them from attaining a state of optimal functioning. They limit the same in exploring various opportunities that would enhance their overall welfare.
According to Kitcher, genetic engineering seeks to eliminate diseases and improve the quality of life of individual (231). This is ethically right and it is inclined in the moral principle of beneficence. Since the future world is likely to present more challenges than the current word, it becomes imperative to equip the future generations with vital capacities that would enable them to cope with the future problems with ease. This can only be attained through genetic engineering that eliminates diseases and improves the quality of life of these individuals. Nevertheless, it can be contended that the process needs to be modulated and incorporated in the current system through time. This would be instrumental in avoiding conflicts that are likely to arise due to the contravention of critical societal values that are currently employed in governance of human interactions. Alternatively, these can be addressed through societal enlightenment, education and awareness building (Kitcher 234). The impact on personal attitudes in this respect is likely to yield positive results.
Works Cited
Gregory, Stock. Redesigning Humans. USA: Mariner Books, 2003.
Michael, Sandel. Case Against Perfection: Ethics in Eugenics. Harvard: University Press, 2007.
Phillip, Kitcher. The Future Lives. USA: Free Press, 1997.
Need help with assignments?
Our qualified writers can create original, plagiarism-free papers in any format you choose (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, etc.)
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Click Here To Order Now
Share this:
FacebookX
