"Do you want leather or cloth seats?" asks the salesperson. "Do you want your baby to have brown or blue eyes?" asks the doctor. Genetic engineering has reached a point where, much like choosing a feature on a car before buying it, we can select the featur es of our baby before its birth. Features like height, eye color, hair color, intelligence, likelihood of illness, and more can be or will likely be selected soon. The question is, is it morally permissible to do so? Discuss the moral implications of genetically engineering human babies. Respond to one of the following: 1. Does it cheapen and commodify human life when we select the features of a human person like we do when purchasing a car? Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a Kantian would say according to its core principles of universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity. Explain how one of these theories supports your answer. Is it morally different to use genetic engineering to lower the likelihood of illness, such as diabetes, as opposed to using it to select an aesthetic feature, such as eye color? Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a Kantian would say accordi ng to its core principles of universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity. Explain how one of these theories supports your answer. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLOs 8.1, 8.2, 8.3) 2. Assuming genetic engineering remains expensive and only the wealthy can afford to engineer their children with more desirable features, such as greater intelligence and a lower likelihood of illness, is it morally permissible to allow genetic engineering? Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum - ranking, and consequences. Explain how o ne of these theories supports your answer. Is it morally different to use genetic engineering to lower the likelihood of illness as opposed to using it to select increased intelligence? Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core princi ples of telos, virtue, and eudaimonia with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum ranking, and consequences. Explain how one of these theories supports your answer. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up y our claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLOs 8.1, 8.2, 8.3) R estorative justice fo cuses upon the victim of the crime Per Rawls, “Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others,” and “all social goods are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution is to everyone’s advantage.” riginally equated justice with fairness, and that he did not mean “equal opportunity” but instead that everybody in a group would have equal opportunity to benefit from social, political, and economic institutions such as government. Per Rawls, we should apply the “ veil of ignorance ” and select principles of justice and fairness as if we are unaware of our own wealth, abilities, intelligence, etc. When we do this, we can state principles of justice from what Rawls calls the “original position.” Rawls’s orig inal position in essence ignores the “natural lottery,” or the state into which we are born, and posits us all as having equal opportunity to benefit. Now, it is difficult at best to put our own natural lottery out of our minds as we contemplate justice and fairness. If we are born wealthy or poor, it is difficult to ignore that. We naturally think of our own interests based upon our natural lottery. We also see that in the U.S. today, Rawls’s principles are sometimes violated by those who make laws. How might Rawls’s ideas apply to human genetic enhancement? U sing movie Gattaca as an example dis cussi ng the idea of human genetic enhancement & d istributive justice John Rawl ’ s 2 Principles: 1. E ach person has an eq ual right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. 2. A ll social goods are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution is to everyone ’ s advantage not gene tically engineer ed = called in - valids T hought to have lesser than valids so they are relegated to less m eaningful employment positions than valids genetically engineered = called valids. main character , Vincent , wants to be ast ronaut but would be deni ed bc he is an invalid but in order to p ursue his dream he borrowers the DNA from a valid I f the setup of valids & invalids benefit everyone in the soci ety equally, john rawls would say there ’ s nothing wrong with that but it does not “Gene editing in humans is not only possible, but a reality. Today, there are people with CRISPR - Cas9 - edited genomes. Right or wrong, the treatment is here to stay.” Fred Schwaller (2023) Today, science has progressed in Eugenics, or the science of improving hereditary qualities through genetic engineering. In 2018, scientist He Jiankui announced the birth of two babies with edited genomes; he used the CRISPR - Cas9 gene - editing tool on twin embryos to rewrite their genes, making them more resistant to HIV. This ultimately led to Jiankui’s three - year imprisonment in China for conducting illegal medical practices. The children are alive and well today. The technology for designer babies is in our hands. However, by editing embryos, the edited gene is passed on down the generational line, altering the course of evolution for generations. Would genoism, or the discrimination against someone based upon their genetic traits, result? “Can there be equality whe n people are being engineered and bred to be superior?” writes Gautham Shenoy (2017). “What about the have - nots who cannot afford this? Where do we draw the line, and who decides what is defective and what is undesirable? ... In Gattaca, even premature baldn ess is considered a genetic defect.” Per Vincent in the movie, “We now have discrimination down to a science” (Shenoy, 2017). Restorative justice vs retributive justice Restorative justice tries to restore the victim. Retributive justice is based on the punishment of offenders rather than their rehabilitation. Movie Gattaca illustrates restorative justice R etributive = punishment, resortative = make things right, try to restore things back to the proper order R estorative focuses on victim of the crime P HILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES ON GENETIC ENGINEERING Autonomy Generally construed, autonomy connotes the ability to decide how to live one's life according to one's desires and values and act freely to promote them. Autonomy is an essential moral concept and a necessary condition for moral responsibility. Without the ability to decide how to live one's life according to one's desires and values and act freely to promote them, one would not be considered morally praiseworthy or blameworthy, depending on the choice(s) made. In that case, they are not typicall y considered ethically responsible for what they might do (or refrain from doing). According to Kant, whenever we act on our respect for the moral law and for duty's sake alone, we do so via reason and not desire. Hence, acting this way ensures that our will is autonomous and not heteronomous. Kant ’ s Crit ique of Judgement – Retributive jus tice, autonomy is vital! When a person knowingly and inte ntionally does wrong, he should be punished for what he did. Harming an innocent person to deter others would be morally acceptable . Though punishment the offender is honored as a rational being since the punishment is looked on as their right. “ I made a choice and I understood the consequences ” In punishment, we are honoring the agent ’ s integrity by giving them their due. Integrity arises from a moral agen t ’ s ability to use reason to guide autonomous ethical decision - making and any subsequent actions freely performed because of those choi ces. (man in jail ) = he ’ s a moral agent who made his own autonomous choices O ffenders have a right to be punished. Punishing offenders respects them as people. What dos it mean to honor th e righ t to be treated as a person? I definitely made the wrong choice but I ’ m only human (says the man in jail) – The right to be treated as a person establishes the right to be punished. Welfarism Welfarism can be described as the view that morally significant consequences affect human welfare (and all sentient creatures). Quantitative Hedonism dictates that: All pleasures must be weighed equally (by assigning consequences a numerical value), and the action that provides the most significant net gain in happiness for all stakeholders is the required action. Bentham posited that one should use a hedonic calculus as a tool one can use to judge whether actions should be performed. Bentham's principle of utility states that: An action is right if that action (out of every action available for an agent to perform) produces the most significant net balance of happiness over unhappiness for said action's stakeholders. Every action (out of every action available for an agent to perform) that fails to produce the most significant net balance of happiness over unhappiness for said action's stakeholders is wrong. Bentham's Hedonic Calculus 1. Intensity – How strong is the pleasure? 2. Duration – How long will the pleasure last? 3. Certainty or Uncertainty – How likely or unlikely is it that pleasure will occur? 4. Propinquity or Remoteness – How soon will pleasure occur? 5. Fecundity – What probability that sensations of the same kind will follow the action? 6. Purity – What is the probability that sensations of the opposite kind will not follow it? 7. Extent – How many people will be affected? Qualitive Hedonism Some pleasures are qualitatively superior to others. According to this view, mental pleasures (i.e., edifying pleasures) are qualitatively superior to bodily pleasures (i.e., unedifying pleasures) Mill ’ s Gre atest Happiness Principle Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle states that right actions produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness for the said action's stakeholders (out of every action available for an agent to perform). Every action that fails to produce the most significant happiness over unhappiness for the said action's stakeholders (out of every action available for an agent to perform) is wrong. Happiness equates to pleasure and the absence of pain , and unhappiness equates to pain and the deprivation of pleasure. Mill's Qualitative Hedonism Higher pleasures are edifying pleasures , and lower pleasures are unedifying pleasures. Higher pleasures are qualitatively better than lower pleasures. For a pleasure to qualify as edifying it must be connected to actions that either engage: 1. our intellect 2. our aesthetic imagination 3. our moral sentiments Motion Picture "Gattica" as it Relates to Genetic Engineering In Gattaca, societal roles hinge on genetic engineering. Vincent Freeman, born without genetic modifications and labeled "invalid," is relegated to society's lower echelons. Despite societal barriers, his ambition to become an astronaut remains undeterred. In a world privileging genetically enhanced "valid" individuals, Vincent, a custodian, adopts the guise of Jerome Morrow, a member of the genetically modified elite. This subterfuge enables him to infiltrate the ranks reserved for the genetically privileged. Through Vincent's journey, the film explores themes of identity and the inequities of genetic discrimination, p oignantly asserting that our destiny is not chained to our genes. Proper Function and Genetic Engineering From a classi c virtue ethics perspective, morality is fixed and is the same for eve ry human because it is based on our proper function, which is determined by what we are. T rans - human = trans means beyond human – will they have different moral obligations? W ill they follow humans ethic standards? Will this result in a two - tiered society with one species superior to the others? Trans - human VS super advanced AI – will they hav e the same moral obligations as humans? Is it part of humanitys proper function to create either inferior or superior species in the first place? Because we can do something does it mean we should? Play God - express that humans hav e a proper function and are exceeding it by the actions they ’ re currently undertaking, regardless of whether a divine being or some natural process determines that function. Super species = their proper function might give them a moral code that has no regard for humans and can result in us being used, treate d as inf erior or subj ugated. Inferior species = would humans be m orally justified in ruling over and enslaving them? How will such actions affect our character? Will this ability encourage us toward hubris? Does it violate our proper function to create a superior species that harms us and our communitys a bility to flo urish and achieve e xcellence? Would this encourage us to become more cruel? Genetic engineering ’ s ability to alter human beings without changing what we are and what our proper function is. The virtue ethicist will be concerned with how these changes will affect the ability of all those involved to live according to their proper function. For the parents, does being able to execute this power make them more likely to be prideful not only in the ability to make such choices, but also that their child is now more beholden to them for the bene fits those choices bring? How does if affect the child and their ability to become the best version of themselves possible? Virtue eth icists often hold a high value for suffering and preserving through difficulti es as this can result in positive character change s. W hat will make us become a better human? Becoming a better human by living according to our proper function.