tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242693628378849302.post6354054832906055628..comments2011-07-08T13:03:42.327-05:00Comments on Political Argument: Designer Babies? Ethical dilemmas surrounding Genetic EnhancementWayne BThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15343455979104443636noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-242693628378849302.post-30517006176597047932007-03-30T23:53:00.000-05:002007-03-30T23:53:00.000-05:00The issue of genetic enhancement is a complicated ...The issue of genetic enhancement is a complicated one. On the one hand there are a lot of illnesses and conditions that could hypothetically be treated by gene alterations and yet on the other hand it seems that such a practice can easily be taken to extremes in order to produce “perfect” babies. I think that, at the least, such genetic alterations are justified in order to rid children of serious conditions and illnesses. There are two things that make me agree with mmk on this matter. Firstly, I think that it is perfectly fair to correct negative deviations from an “acceptable” life i.e. one devoid of serious physical or mental problems. I already support mercy killings for children with serious conditions such as (infantile) Tay-Sachs disease. But of course saving and curing an infant is infinitely better than killing it out of mercy. Secondly, John Rawls, one of the great political philosophers of our time, argues that we do not have any reason to deserve the talents we are given. Our innate abilities and capacities are unfortunately a matter of luck and to the extent that we can equalize our differences, we ought to, he feels. Thus there is no reason to respect the “natural order” because a lot of things might be construed as natural. Maybe we shouldn’t have hospitals, for example, because it is “natural” to die when your time comes. Or maybe we shouldn’t wear clothes because all the other creatures of the Earth do not. It seems that nakedness, even if it is not a tradition of most societies, is “natural” in that it is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Thus since there is no particular reason to respect the way nature has made us, as Rawls would argue, we can reasonably modify the initial conditions to provide better lives for people and, as Rawls would like, more equality.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16450075469444824331noreply@blogger.com