Savulescu ethics of genetic enhancement we are not

This preview shows page 8 - 11 out of 15 pages.

Savulescu: Ethics of Genetic EnhancementWe are not only morally permitted to genetically enhance offspring, we areobligated to do so …First Argument:Neglectful Parents:couldsustain child’s ‘stunning intellect’ with a dietarysupplement, but neglect to do so -> child’s intellect dips to ‘normal’ level
Lazy Parents:couldenhance child’s ‘normal intellect’ to a ‘stunning’ level with adietary supplement, but don’t attempt to do so -> child’s intellect remains at‘normal’ levelSince both parents fail to bring about the ‘best state of affairs’, they are bothmorally wrongin their failure to benefit their children;if we can benefit others,we ought t0Substitute ‘dietary supplement’ for ‘genetic enhancement’Second Argument:Since theoutcomesare relevantly similar, there is no relevant difference betweenA)environmental enhancement interventionsand B)genetic enhancementinterventionsEnvironmental enhancements like education, diet, training, structuralsurroundings, etc. are considered morally permissible -> but these have long-lasting, often irreversible, and sometimes heritable, effectsIf there is no appreciable difference between (A) and (B), and (A) is alreadyconsidered morally permissible, why not (B)?Third Argument:Ifhealthisinstrumentally valuablefor the realization of ‘a good life,’illnessvariably hinders this instrument (viz. the body) and consequently the realizationof ‘a good life’Ifthere were agenetic basisfor ‘good life’ traits, andifwecouldmanipulatesuch genes to enhance those traits we would thereby increase the ‘chance ofhaving a better lifeThis would be consistent with theduty of beneficence,so genetic enhancementinterventions ought to be performedSavulescu:once technology affords us with the power to enhance our and ourchildren’s lives, to fail to do so will be to be responsible for the consequences.
3. EuthanasiaVoluntary Active Euthanasia:Directly causing death of patient with theirexpressed consentVoluntary Passive Euthanasia:Withholding/withdrawing life support of patientwith their expressed consentNonvulontary Active Euthanasia:Directly causing death of patient without theirexpressed consentNonvoluntary Passive Euthanasia:Withholding/withdrawing life support ofpatient without their expressed consentEthical IssuesRespect for autonomyPro:persons with the capacity to consent ought to be able to exercise their right toself-determination -> even if this involves self-terminationCon:respect for autonomy involves the universal prohibition of directly andintentionally killing another person -> letting die is permissible, but never direct/intentional killing (i.e. principle of double effect)Duty of BeneficencePro:If we can relieve intense suffering it would be inhumane to fail to do so ->even if relief of suffering directly causes deathCon:It would be inhumane to fail to relieve suffering where we can, but this doesnot need to involve direct killing -> palliative care is morally preferable toeuthanasiaUtilityPro:

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 15 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
StefanRodde
Tags
Voluntary euthanasia

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture