Eugenic Decision-Making

A Brave New World published in 1932 by Aldous Huxley was about a utopian society in which people were placed in castes because of how their embryos were modified. Little did the author know less than a century later the idea of “designer babies” might be a reality. Designer babies are very similar to Huxley’s idea; a person could be genetically altered before they were born. Unlike Huxley’s book, in which embryos were genetically modified due to government industrial control, designer babies’ destinies are determined by parental control. Although, gene alteration can prevent genetic diseases, predetermining genetic outcomes should be illegal because of its negative effects on society; the effect genes have on each other, and the underwhelming success rate.

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.

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.

Future eugenicists can extort their knowledge and use it to their advantage. Eugenics is an interesting subject that is co-dependent on society; the future holds great possibilities for acknowledgment in this field of science.

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

Eugenics is very controversial. It is important to be informed on the subject to avoid making rash and hasty decisions on whether or not it is right or wrong. It is up to each individual to gain the knowledge necessary to determine the moral correctness or incorrectness of any topic. Often decisions are made without information to back them up. You must understand the term before understanding the action. In this way, we must understand eugenics in a general sense and in detail. We must start with defining the term eugenics.

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.

The theory of Eugenics can be dated back all the way to 400 B.C. but was not popularized until the mid-1800s by an English scientist, Francis Galton. He researched and published the theory that aimed to improve the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding (NC Office of Archives and History). As the half-cousin of Charles Darwin, Galton applied the Darwinism science (survival of the fittest) to heredity characteristics. Two types of Eugenics stemmed from the theory, positive and negative. Positive eugenics is encouraging the “best” people in the society based on financial and personal features to have more children while negative eugenics is picking people with flaws and defects from the population

Gattaca is an American based science fiction cinema directed by Andrew Niccol in 1997. The movie is set shortly where social class is demarcated by the genetic composition. Eugenics, which is the methodology of conceiving babies via genetic manipulation, has become the most typical process of giving birth (Niccol, 2015). Though discrimination is unlawful, the D.N.A analysis has become an ordinary procedure, and those who were naturally conceived are seen as ‘invalids’, which makes discriminated in various, for instance, resulting in being given minor jobs. Therefore, this research presents the summary, the biocultural phenomenon, and the real world implications of Gattaca (1997) movie.

In his article defending procreative beneficence, Julian Savulescu argues that “couples…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” (2001, 413). In this article, I argue that Savulescu’s conclusion introduces complications which challenge its practical application. These complications can be outlined as follows: a) what is best, in terms of non-disease character traits, is subject to change and irrationality; and b) unfettered selection by reproducers may have profound and unknown impacts on human populations. Accordingly, private, unrestrained genetic selection must be banned in the United States, with research permitted under careful oversight.

In The Future of Human Nature, Jurgen Habermas is alarmed that human nature is under attack by the advancements in biotechnology. The fairly recent possibility to alter the genetic code of an embryo, puts concept of human nature under the threat of extinction, and in one way or another, fails to recognize the embryo as a moral agent in society and undermines the moral equality, which we are obliged to hold. In addition, there are exceptions in his mind that would see pre-birth genetic intervention as morally acceptable. When genetic intervention is used to prevent a serious illness or disability of a future individual, consent is assumed due to the fact that, no person could reject this prevention, however an individual can in fact deny an enhancement.

Since the end of the 19th century, eugenics has had a significant role in the development of Western society. There have been laws established by its presence and a war fought to cease its progress. To analyze the philosophy of and the actions due to eugenics, one must look at the past and see what contributions eugenics has made to events in history. One must also look at the present applications of eugenics and how they affect the lives of people. With these two directions, one can see that because it is racist, encourages immoral actions and is biologically unsound, eugenics is iniquitous and should be abolished from modern medical and political thought.

The definition of eugenics is to breed out undesirable traits. Based off of Austrian scientist Gregor Mendel’s studies, eugenics is accomplished through selective breeding. Dominant traits would replace recessive traits and the law of dominance would be ineffective. Originally, the idea behind eugenics was not completely bad. Over time though, problems surrounding it have been found. Dealing with positive and negative traits, questions have been asked about what constitutes as a negative trait and who decides which traits are

Although proponents of eugenics believe it can create a more fit society, it can lead to major inequalities. As explained by MacKellar and Betchel, “Eugenic practices might also result in a widened definition of disability and discrimination against the disabled.” Eugenics can give parents an opportunity to test if their child will have a specific genetic disease. This can lead to parents either aborting the embryo or fetus and sometimes infanticide. By doing this Dorthy Porter, the author of Darwinian Disease Archaeology states, “[it is] freeing humanity of deviant DNA.” Parents are doing this, as George who wrote Ethics, Politics, and Genetic Knowledge puts it, “for the

Reproductive germline engineering—the genetic selection and modification of embryos—offers a change in the human reproduction cycle and the human race in general. Although still in development, genetic engineering hopes to one day be able to allow parents to choose the appearance, personality, and intelligence of their children—very much like the virtual reality games that allow players to design every aspect of their own avatar or characters. While this advancement in science and molecular engineering seems exciting and innovative, this type of enhancement has many ethical issues. In this essay I will use Kantian moral theory to explain why genetic engineering is unethical. I will begin by giving background information about genetic engineering development and describe the views of those on both sides of the issue. I will then offer my own argument—that genetic engineering removes individuality from the children and is extremely paternalistic. Genetic engineering should only be utilized for removing traits that would lessen a person’s quality of life such as life-threatening diseases. I will then offer the counterargument to my position that genetic engineering is utilitarian and gives people the best and easiest life possible. After describing the argument, I will expose the faults in the argument and explain how genetic engineering does not necessarily improve life for those impacted and also does not benefit the majority of people if only the rich can afford the process.