psy 622 T2D1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Grand Canyon University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
622
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by Desi_89
Now that we have the scientific technology to alter people’s genes, should society allow for the alteration of human genes to eliminate criminal predispositions or to improve upon desirable traits? Use scholarly resources to support your explanations. Access and read the GCU Statement on the Integration of Faith and Work. How might a person with the Christian worldview feel about altering human genes to eliminate criminal predispositions or to improve desirable traits?
The question of whether society should allow the alteration of human genes to eliminate criminal predispositions or enhance desirable traits raises complex ethical, scientific, and societal considerations.
Ethical Concerns:
Autonomy and Consent-
One major concern is that it may infringe on a person's right to autonomy. Genetic alteration to alter characteristics raises questions of informed consent, particularly when changing genes in embryos or in future generations who cannot give consent.
Unintended Consquences-
Gene editing is still in its early stages, there is a
risk of off-target effects, side effects, and long-term consequences.
Scientific Considerations:
Complexity of Traits-
Genetics, environment, and social factors all play a role in the development of many desirable characteristics, such as intelligence or behavior. Identifying specific genes that contribute to these characteristics is
difficult, and changing them may not result in desired outcomes (Kegley, 2008)
Genetic Determinism-
Arguing that a single gene causes a complex behavior, such as criminal predisposition, is an oversimplification of the relationship between genetics and environmental factors. Criminal behavior has many genetic, environmental and psychological roots.
Societal Implications:
Social Inequality-
The availability of genetic enhancements could worsen existing social disparities, creating a gap between the wealthy and the poor.
Shift in Values-
Gene editing on a large scale could lead to a culture where some characteristics are more important than others, which could reduce value
of biodiversity.
Erosion of Identity-
The alteration of essential elements of a person's genetic makeup raises questions about the person's senses of self and identity.
Gene editing for medical purposes has great potential, but ethical guidelines and regulations must be in place to ensure that this technology is used in a responsible and just manner. Consultation with bioethics, philosophers, legal professionals, and public engagement is essential to make informed decisions that balance personal autonomy, societal sensitivities, and scientific progress (Peekhaus, 2013). It involves considerations of genetic engineering and
bioethics, as well as individual autonomy and social implications. There are different perspectives, and scholarly sources offer a variety of views on this topic. It is important to note that the field of gene editing is changing rapidly, and ethical considerations play an important role in determining how these technologies will be used and regulated. Whatever decision is made regarding the use of gene editing technologies, there should be informed discussions between scientists, policy makers, ethicists and the public at large to ensure that the technology is used responsibly and ethically.
Arguments in Favor of Genetic Editing:
1.
Medical Treatment:
Genetic editing has the potential to correct genetic diseases and prevent certain inherited diseases, improving human health and well-being.
2.
Personal Autonomy:
Proponents argue that people should be able to change their
genetic makeup if it improves their quality of life or improves their physical health or mental health.
3.
Human Enhancement:
Gene editing could also be used to improve desirable characteristics like intelligence, physical strength, and emotional strength, which could
lead to social improvements.
Arguments Against Genetic Editing:
1.
Ethical Concerns:
Gene-splicing technology raises ethical questions about the role of designer babies, which can lead to disparities in access to technologies and social inequality.
2.
Unintended Consequences:
Because of the complex nature of genetic interactions, gene editing has the potential to cause unexpected and unintended outcomes. Long-term impacts on individuals and the general population are not yet known.
3.
Social Implications:
The idea of altering genes to remove criminal traits or improve them raises fears of social pressure to meet a standard of “normal” or “optimal” behavior.
The GCU statement states, “WE BELIEVE that mankind was originally created in the image of God and given responsibility over creation, but that all have failed to fulfill their God-given purpose and responsibility (
STATEMENT ON THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND WORK
, n.d.)." Now I understand that modern genetic technology can help those that inherit certain diseases. But as far as appearance goes, I don't think anyone should alter the way God made you look, we are the clay and He is the potter. People won't look like their biological parents, God wanted us and intended us to look the way we look today. Ethical, social and scientific complexities are at play in the debate over whether to modify human genes to remove criminal predisposition or to improve desirable traits. Ethical questions, unintended consequences, and wider implications for society need to be addressed.
Kegley, J. A. (2008). Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people.
Choice, 45
(6), 1009.
https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/
enhancing-evolution-ethical-case-making-better/docview/225726566/se-2
Peekhaus, W. (2013). [Review of
Genetic Justice: DNA Data Banks, Criminal Investigations, and Civil Liberties
, by S. Krimsky & T. Simoncelli].
Science & Society
,
77
(4), 587–589.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24584627
Resnik, D. B., & Vorhaus, D. B. (2006). Genetic modification and genetic determinism.
Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM
,
1
(1), E9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-1-9
STATEMENT ON THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND WORK
. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16,
2024, from
https://www.gcu.edu/Documents/Statement-IFLW.pdf
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help