The world that
The world that
Namit Arora, “What Do We Deserve”. He portrays the discussion on societal success and achievements. Society’s perspective on success is not measured by hard work it is measured through wealth attained. People of our society do not deserve exactly what they obtain just because they are diligent and hardworking throughout their life. Arora supports his belief by interpreting Michael Sandel’s book “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” which discussed the three major approaches to distributive economic justice which include libertarian, meritocratic, and egalitarian. The three different models presented disagree with the belief that all people should be treated…
The two short stories, “The Tenant” by Mukherjee and “The Red Sweater” by Ng bear many similarities as well as differences. The authors of these two stories go about conveying basically the same message, however, with a slight variety. In these short stories, Mukherjee and Ng go into detail of the lives of two young women struggling with their identities as immigrants in the American culture. This clashing of cultures, predominantly the Asian culture (in these cases), against the American culture, is the central idea that one may conclude after reading these two short stories. Mukherjee and Ng both share or differ in the three literary elements of plot, theme, and characters in portraying the consequences of this culture clash.…
Scientists are developing ways to edit the DNA of tomorrow’s children. In the short story “Flowers for Algernon”, by Daniel Keyes, there is an intellectually disabled man named Charlie Gordon that is also going to operated on to promote his intelligence. As informed scientists are developing ways to edit the DNA of babies. That means that people are making their babies with requested traits: intelligence, eye color, athleticism, and disease prevention. They are known as designer babies. As informed, scientists are developing ways to edit the DNA of babies. That means that people are developing ways to edit the DNA of babies That means that people are making their babies with requested traits: intelligence, eye color, athleticism, and disease prevention. They are known as designer babies. A designer baby is someone who has been genetically engineered in vitro for pre-selected traits in a glass petri-dish, very from lowering the risk of a genetic disorder to gender selection. It is not okay to change humans by artificial means.…
Most people would concede that cloning and genetic enhancements are two notorious words that most would not consent with. In Mr. Kass’s article “Preventing Brave New World” commences on the astonishing achievements in bio-medical science and technology. Mr. Leon E. Kass agrees that people should be obliged for the breakthrough of advanced bio medical science and technology. Mr. Kass’s incredible work in bio-ethical science has placed this very well known philosopher in the white house with the Bush’s administration. Mr. Kass mentions in his article that we live in a world where transforming powers are already being applied in the 20th century, For example; In vitro fertilization, bottled embryos wombs, surrogate wombs, cloning, genetic screening,…
The essay “Building Baby from the Genes Up” by Ronald M. Green explains how in the future, parents might be able to design the genes of their future baby. Green supports genetic engineering of embryos, “why not improve our genome?” (549). He thinks that with the process of in vitro and preimplantation, it could eliminate disease or confer desirable features onto our future. Some medical professionals is concerned about the effect of genetic selection in parenting, Green said “The critics concerns may be less troublesome than they appear”, he thinks that parents will not love their children any less in the quest of perfection, and any kids will not be pressured to live up to perfectionist and expectation.…
In “The Case Against Perfection”, Michael J. Sandel gives his argument whether genetic coding is effective or ineffective. Sandel talks about genetic knowledge that people have learned overtime through scientific research and how this can be used to influence our species by intensifying our muscles and our minds and to choose the sex and height of our children. Sandel’s essay is effective because he looks at it from both the scientific side and the religious side, he makes valid points about how genetic coding will affect the height and muscles of individuals, he believes that genetic coding takes away the task of each child developing their own personality, and he argues that an eight cell organism is considered an abortion, if killed.…
Essay #3: Gattaca The human genome project is a great scientific advance but is society ready for it? Gattaca is a futuristic film that portrays the social ramifications of the problems of the project. We have to be very cautious and restrictive on how we use these new advances or we will turn into Gattaca. The genes in the human body have been completely mapped out in Gattaca and they can produce the perfect babies. They have the technology available to remove diseases or enhance looks and abilities. Arthur Caplan in his article "The Brave New World of Babymaking," describes Gattaca's baby assembly line, "[ ] parents can go further, choose hair color, height, and even intelligence, they [are] consciously engineering human beings" (89). The…
In the essay “The Case Against Perfection” author Michael J. Sandel states that with the recent genetic breakthroughs our society is now faced with both a “promise and a predicament” (p.1.) This knowledge will know allow us to further treat and cure a wash of crippling diseases. Nevertheless, despite this miraculous breakthrough this discovery also open what seems to be a Pandora’s Box filled with concerns for moral prevalence, malpractice, and even perhaps the loss of free will to offspring. All of which leaves the users or perspective wielders of such power with a case of what Michael Sandel describes simply as a case of “moral vertigo” (p. 1.) Just like the original Pandora’s Box however, Sandel reveals…
Bioethical Analysis of Gattaca Envision living in a world where it is conventional that humans are first constructed as ‘designer babies’, with progenitors possessing the ability to manipulate the attributes of their offspring to one’s absolute desire. Depicted in the dramatized 1997 film Gattaca, a presentation of an unfathomable feasibility in fabricating another being's appearance from birth, enhancing the accustomed human anatomical structure, excluding any deficits found in antecedent generational heredities, and even opening an engineered gateway to an increased lifespan, regardless of innate DNA. All of these modifications fit into an exercise defined as genetic alteration or eugenics. If the engineering is contained to a certain extent and done with reasonability, ethical benefits arise, such as the extermination of illnesses in young and unborn children, and the curing of intractable progressive diseases otherwise found incurable in humans.…
. Sandel illustrates his unease with genetic enhancement by refuting arguments people have previously used to oppose genetic enhancement. All while telling us why such arguments were not successful, and redirecting our attention to the real dilemma. Sandel feels that the common arguments society makes against generic enhancement are not sufficient to portray the entire ethical problem and on top of that the arguments are flawed themselves. Arguments such as violation of autonomy, fairness, gap of economic classes, competition to perfection, and Nazi eugenics are not sufficient to express the moral unease that embodies the act of generic…
In his article “Supersize Your Child?,” Richard Hayes explains the pros and cons of genetic engineering. His claim is one of policy that states by giving examples of what could happen if you genetically engineer your child; you could make them attractive, give them photographic memories, or even ensure they have a life span of up to 200 years. The warrants of his claim are that Hayes makes this all sound very attractive to the reader. He also assumes that the reader wants this for their children; the parents want the children to be the best of the best. (Hayes 184)…
What right does man have to accuse another of such a dastardly feat? It is nearly an undoubtable fact that one day man and technology will form a unity and biotechnology will become integrated into everyday life. Man has no right to play God, but man also has no right to attack every technological breakthrough with controversy and radical accusations. “Playing God” is a cliché that has become all too common in the present day. Man has every natural right to alter and improve itself as a race through biomedical augmentations. It is inevitable that technological breakthroughs will have widespread effects on the fields of biology and physiology. Biotechnological developments will also lead to grave changes in global commerce and consumerism within a span as short as the next 20 years. Theological and ethical arguments against replacing the natural human form do not possess the factual backing, nor the rationale, to effectively make the accusation that man is “playing God” with its inevitable biotechnologies and procedures. The human body has near-unlimited capabilities as a biotechnological receptor, and the possibility that this will become a reality is up to society. If humanity can accept the technologic lifestyle it is destined toward, then ethical debates and moral rationales will finally stop getting in the way of scientific…
The argument between whether genetic engineering is wrong or right rages on every day, and will continue to be an issue until everybody can come to an agreement on what can and can’t be done. Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, writes about how she feels and questions the progression of modern science and how far we can go until it is just morally and ethically wrong. Through the mind of a young scientist, Mary pictures the possibility of what could happen if we venture too far into the unknown and how could it harm everyone. Knowing the line between continuing and finding things that can help society and knowing when to stop is essential to stop something from happening just like in the novel Frankenstein. Not only that, but many people argue over the fact that modifying the human body is wrong and go against the will of many different…
Here, when parents are planning on having a baby, they are faced with having to decide whether they want a genetically engineered baby or whether they want to let nature run its course. However, this decision involves much more than a simple yes or no, as this decision will decide their child’s social location and will assign them a master status. Deciding to genetically engineer their baby, parents are assuring their baby the master label of valid, but parents who decide to let nature run its course, are taking the huge risk of having a no-perfect child who will be labeled with the master status of ‘invalid,’ one which can’t be changed.…
In the article “Better Living Through Genetics”, author James Wood states that there is a genuine threat toward humans and normalcy of the way societies and cultures are viewed. Wood talks about basic research about characteristics of a human beings and their genetic makeup. He goes on to coin the term Utopia to prevent diseases, birth defects, and to make changes to the molecular structure of their offspring. In his Utopia he claims that with In-Vitro fertilization you can make an embryo perfect for the right price but not everyone will be able to afford this treatment. He also states that your unique identity is in trouble in the form of reductionism. One type of reductionism views humans as machines only that our brain capacities contain only structured information and not processing units. He also states that if you don’t comply with utopia you could be banned and cease to exist.…