Fahrenheit 98.6

I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with genetic enhancement. Of course we should be responsible as in all things. And we should do our best to understand something before taking action, as with all powerful novelties. That said, I think there are serious problems with genetic enhancement and designer babies. These issues are damning in our current society. I’ll make my argument based on the following beliefs that I will assume. This practice will be no different from general society in valuing normalcy as opposed to rebelliousness (how many queer/trans-babies do you think will be requested?). And this practice will be no different than society in general by privileging the wealthy, furthering an already disastrous inequality. 

            I guess I don’t really see much novelty or critical thinking in my diagnosis. It seems apparent that genetic enhancement will further inequality and equally apparent that inequality is detrimental to society. Maybe the real question here is what’re we doing with our lives? What has society come to that masses of people are scavenging for water and food while we’re discussing the ethics of making super-human babies and birthing sacrificial children? I guess there’s poetic irony to the sacrificial children debate. There’s little debate as to the acceptability of capitalism, never mind the millions of sacrificial children dying for our comfort— our luxury. I think if there’s an ethical lesson to be taken from genetic engineering it’s the spotlight it puts on already enormous ethical failures. And an omen that the longer we wait, the more technology advances and the more complex and dire our moral situation becomes.

Designer Babies

Leaving aside the situations where genetic modification is life-saving, the topic of designer babies brings up an interesting question. Does the consent of the baby actually being "designed" matter? Of course, it is impossible to ask a fetus for consent, it does not have the capacity to hold consent in the same way that young children or animals cannot give their consent to something. But if this is true, would that not make designer babies immoral? Or is it because they cannot give consent we are okay to genetically modify our children?

Suppose a scenario where a couple want to have a child with blue eyes. Of course, this is a recessive trait and therefore is usually harder to obtain. The couple decide to "design" their child. Then when the child is of age he/she remarks how they wish they had brown eyes instead. Here when the child was finally able to give consent, he or she would have not given it because the result is not to their preference. Because we cannot know of their actual desire beforehand it makes the question a difficult one and most likely we should not design our children for traits that we have a preference for. There are however, situations that we can more clearly guess the consent of the child.

In the case of a life threatening disease, the answer is clear cut. The consequence of such a situation is pain and suffering, so of course it would be safe to assume that the perceived desire would be to genetically modify the genome to save the child's life. Of course this may have its exceptions. The child who was modified may grow up and develop strong religious beliefs that prompts him or her to believe that the modification of humans must be left to some higher power. When this person realizes he or she was a designer baby, they may perhaps feel horrified. They may have preferred a life of suffering instead. This situation however, is a very small exception, and if the child had not been designed, he or she most likely would have never grown up to even be able to develop these opinions, so in the case of disease genetic modification should be okay.

Then there is a gray area where the trait may seem clear cut but its not as clear cut as the scenario of the life-threatening disease. Can we modify a baby's intelligence to a level that is preferable? In these types of instances, it seems  okay to assume consent would be given and therefore we would probably have the okay to continue.

Blog 13

The thought of genetically engineering your child seems quite far-fetched and unnatural; however with modern technology we are close to making this a new option in reproducing. Since this practice is becoming increasingly close to being a reality, it must be addressed among all people despite religion and views the integrity of an embryo. In Christian Response to Designer Babies, Sarah and Theol explain that the concept of designer babies is an “advanced reproductive technology that allows medical doctors to screen embryos for genetic disorders and select healthy embryos.” If used correctly, I believe this process is ethical and a huge stride in the medical industry. These screenings could be helpful to future generations and can essentially weed out detrimental and enviable genes that cause pain, suffering, and even death to millions of people.

However, I want to discuss the immorality of this technology that was lightly touched on in this article.  Fear of such technology stems in using it to select embryos that have cosmetic features or intellect that are deemed desirable and superior by society. This is an extremely possible outcome if such technology is approved and used in common practice that I believe if was discussed further in the articles would have strengthen the immorality of abusing such process. Although it is nice to have faith in humanity and believe that medical practitioners would not offer such an option, which is an irrational belief. Sorry to be cynical but everyone has a price tag, and with the right amount of money a doctor would practice such procedures. Since the families will have to fund the screening, only those with adequate amount of income will be able to design the child that they want. This creates unequal opportunities for the people to modify their children which overtime may create and immense divide in socioeconomic status between genetically chosen humans and those who were not genetically chosen. This gap would continually widen between the superior and inferior until there would be a great divide of opportunity in the populations. Also, regarding cosmetology, there is no one desirable phenotype trait among each culture in the world, therefore who can determine the most desirable traits. Cosmetology also has nothing to do with intellect, personality, or what type of person you truly are so it is illogical to say that one phenotype is better than the other. This can also create a rift and division among populations that can afford to genetically alter their children as viewing them as superior to those who can’t. Another serious and real issue is gendercide. We now live a world where in several countries mothers commonly practice infanticide on baby girls because a boy is more valuable, powerful, and desired. If mothers are ruthlessly murdering their children now, giving them access to screen for gender can create huge problems in gender distribution in these countries, which are already seeing noticeable differences. I believe abusing can truly stunt all the good that can come from it and harm it can prevent, however these real life scenarios are extremely possible if these screenings are passed and need to be investigated in further detail. Sarah and Theol could have used these examples to strengthen their positions on the immorality of the abuse of such technology.

Sweatshop Morality

A utilitarian would think that sweatshops are immoral because the consequential suffering and pain that the factory workers endure are greater than the resulting economic benefits (wages, products). This is definitely true when comparing the workers pain against the resulting money that consumers save by shopping at big box stores such as Walmart. The intended price differential that consumers benefit from is trivial compared to the suffering that is associated with sweatshops. I imagine that most people would agree that saving ten dollars on a television at Walmart is not worth Meem’s stolen childhood.  However, a grey area appears when comparing the workers suffering to the workers “benefits”. Regardless of how low the wage may be, they are still being paid. One could argue that although working conditions and wages are awful, it is better than the potential mass unemployment. Opponents of sweatshops suggest that wages and working conditions should be improved; however, that may not be plausible. Especially when sweatshops are “screening” potential employee to ensure that the injustices of the industry are concealed. Thus, boycotting companies that outsource to sweatshops takes jobs away from the poor, which is more harmful than it is helpful. If a sweatshop shuts down causing thousands of people to lose their jobs, their living conditions and suffering may be worse because they have no income whatsoever. Therefore, under those specific circumstances, sweatshops may be justifiable by utilitarian’s because poverty with no job is worse than poverty with a job that is physically and emotionally demanding. 

Natural?

The concept and processes of transgenesis, or genetic modification of humans has raised many controversies regarding the ethics of this practice. The main concern that seems to plague many individual’s thoughts on the topic is whether or not transgenesis is a “natural” thing for humans. Although many individuals are under the impression that the process of transgenesis is something that goes against human nature, it has been theorized that evolution itself is proof of transgenesis among many organisms, even humans (da Fonesca et al., 1).  Varieties of transgenesis have also been found to occur in prokaryotes such as bacteria and viruses, prokaryotes that many would deem natural, as well as common in human nature. For the individuals that would consider transgenesis to be an unnatural occurrence, it must also be understood that the risks associated with this process are not higher than other manipulations of people; education processes, surgical interventions, and cognitive therapy are all examples of human manipulation that pose risks to an individual’s well-being (da Fonesca et al., 1).

Although certain processes of transgenesis are looked upon as improving well-being, many of the authors agreed that the process of genetically engineering an embryo is one that is not viewed fondly. For example, it was discussed while antenatal screening has many benefits, including reduced risk to mothers and reduction of children born with burdensome conditions, it is ethically wrong when an individual terminates a pregnancy when a detected disease or disorder is not an untreatable, fatal disease of infancy (Zahedi, 2). If one were to terminate a pregnancy that did not pose a serious threat to herself or her child based on an antenatal screening, it would seem that the mother would be minimizing the actual benefits of the genetic screen and maximizing overall harm. Zahedi especially would be extremely opposed to this because he feels that we must use genetic screening and transgenesis to “maximize its benefits and minimize any harm” (Zahedi, 1). In order to truly increase one’s overall well-being, as well as maximize the benefits and minimize the harm of genetic screening and transgenesis, we must make sure that weary individuals are able to access the proper information about the issue itself and we must make sure these individuals properly understand the ways in which transgenesis can and ought to be used. To sum it up, “the problem does not lie in the tool itself, but in what use people will make of it” (da Fonesca et al., 10).

Not All Change is Created Equal

In the article “Human Transgenesis: Definitions, Technical Possibilities and Moral Challenges”, there is a small section titled “Human Nature is Transgenic”. In it the authors begin by refuting the claim that gene therapy for the purpose of human genetic enhancement would alter the essence of human nature; the idea that humans are a perfected species made in the image of God. This common definition of human nature is incorrect, so they claim, because of our current understanding of genetics and Darwinian evolution. Our genes are not unchangeable, but very fluid and mutational. Thus gene therapy and genetic enhancement would do nothing different than what our genes already do all the time; change. So to the people who fear genetic enhancement would cause unknown harm by changing a set code of human DNA, the authors would say there is nothing to fear because human DNA changes all the time. I don’t find their argument very convincing, though. The mechanisms by which natural selection changes the phenotype of an organism is completely different than that of purposeful genetic engineering. In natural and artificial selection, the genotype is left to change on its own (through natural mutation) and either we choose the most advantageous phenotype that corresponds with that genetic change (artificial), or that phenotype is deemed advantageous because it enables the organism to survive or reproduce (natural). In both cases, the actual genetic change is left up to natural processes. The resulting phenotype is the driving mechanism for change. Genetic enhancement turns that process upside down. Now we are the catalyst for genetic change in the hopes of getting a desired phenotype, which is hardly the same thing as natural genetic mutation. Natural evolution is a slow process, a culmination of many gradual changes over time and multiple generations. Genetic enhancement runs the risk of changing the genetic structure of an organism too drastically and/or too quickly. While I can conceive of genetic enhancements that do neither of these, the possibility still exists to the extent of being a significant concern. Therefore worry on the side of unknown consequences from genetic enhancements is still justified and not refuted as the authors suggest.

designer babies

There are multiple different views on designer babies and human enhancement. I will first start off about human enhancement. I believe that human enhancement is not morally permissible. I think even currently our society places too much emphasis on “perfect traits”. There are no such things as perfect traits. Allowing for human enhancement would other further progress this mindset and create more divisions within our society for things like race, height, weight, etc. We as a society do not have the right to decide what are “perfect traits”. Also, as a progressing society, what people view as perfect is continuously changing. Therefore, it would be nearly impossible to find universal perfect traits that last more than the typical trend.

In regards to transgenesis, I think future generations could present the benefits of it. However, I think right now there are currently so many “kinks” to get out that could be dangerous to a human life. I have a problem with research because I hate the idea of testing on humans for anything, let alone a new life. For example, when babies are created for the sake of saving a child’s life; if something goes wrong during a trial, that could potential put the sick child’s life in even more danger. I am still formulating an opinion about whether it is morally permissible or not to create a life for the sake of saving another.  Overall, I think there could be multiple benefits in the future for designer babies for the sake of health issues, but I never think it is permissible for the sake of appearance. 

Designer Babies

In “A Christian Response to the Issue of ‘Designer Babies’”, the piece states that designer babies have “the potential to disturb the integrity of creation” and that “it is the prime responsibility of the church to oppose the creation of designer babies”. I would agree that in many cases, the concept of designer babies should be opposed, though I for slightly different reasons.

I assume that it can somewhat be taken for granted in our society that favoring people over others based on genetic factors that they cannot control, such as race, sex, appearance, intelligence, etc. is morally reprehensible. It would also appear that for the same reason, favoring those specific genetic traits themselves would be wrong. Even if a child were given specific genetic traits in order to give them an advantage over their peers, or to minimize disadvantages, this would not be a good enough reasoning, because the society which makes those traits advantageous would still be at fault and performing a moral wrong, and using that society as an authority to base decisions on would merely be perpetuating that same wrong.

However, I think in cases of terminal illness, the wrongness of allowing one to die outweighs the value of any moral constraints on the concept of designer babies, and therefore makes the question of whether the process is “natural” irrelevant and morally permits the creation of a designer baby. The piece suggests that perhaps parents with a “savior sibling” would favor one child over another. The wrongness of this would lie in the act of favoring of one child over another, rather than in the creation of the child. The fact that one child was created to save another has no direct indication that one of them is less valuable. Furthermore, it is suggested that it may be psychologically damaging to the savior sibling to learn that they were created for a purpose. However, again this holds no direct connection, because if the child is valued less, and suffers emotionally because of it, the wrongness lies in the parents’ lesser valuing, rather than the creation itself. It seems that being told one was created for a purpose would intrinsically be no more damaging that one being told their birth was “unplanned”. 

last blog post

One issue that I have with transgenesis is that there are unknown future implications.  It is unknown how changing genes could affect us as a species evolutionary or even more immediately. Before this is addressed and discovered, transgenesis should not be done.

Full disclosure: I don't necessarily agree with this argument.  Another argument I have against transgenesis is its implications on the planet.  If transgenesis is being used to essentially keep people alive who shouldn't be, as awful as it sounds we are contributing to the overpopulation of this planet.  I do not mean that we should never be keeping people alive I am simply saying that transgenesis could be used to prolong the inevitable.  Even if transgenesis is allowing for people to live long lives, these people will be procreating and possibly passing on their original poor genetic makeup. People who are kept alive in this way are using this planet's resources, which are already depleting at an alarming rate.

An argument I have against genetic enhancement is that we, as people, should not be controlling evolution.  What we are changing now could not be beneficial to our children or grandchildren or could even be detrimental to them.  What we may now consider "positive traits" could be the future's "negative traits."  There could also be a problem with there being different "fads" in terms of genetics.  Obviously this is an exaggeration and it is even committing the slippery slope fallacy, but instead of this weeks new style it could be this weeks new gene.

Blog post 12

If you choose to post by Wednesday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about designer babies and human enhancement, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about designer babies and human enhancement.

Volunteer Tourism (Developing Caring Relationships)

At first I did not think of the many reasons as to how volunteering in a foreign land could be problematic. After reading Sin’s paper on volunteer tourism I believe caring relationships need to be developed in order for the success of the project at hand. There is a deep problem that exists if those volunteering do not get on to the level of the locals (Sin 986). Zakaria argued that volunteer tourism often times has a singular focus on providing the volunteer an experience instead of providing for the recipient (1). When a caring relationship is established it seems to me that there would be a change in focus towards catering to the needs of the recipient. I mentioned before volunteers have to “get on to the level” of the locals. This is best explained by Daily Muse emphasizing “’the need for the volunteer to adapt to the culture, to be flexible, relevant, and realistic’”(2). This simply means that when volunteering, one has a lot to learn about the area and really tap into what assistance he or she can provide. The idea of creating a caring relationship involves one to learn about the culture so that there is not a marginalization of those providing the aid and the recipient. Also, if one is not realistic with his or her expectations of the limited ways that the recipient can provide something in return, then the idea of volunteer tourism could create more problems. According to the Aristotelian theory of virtue ethics, I think that anything that would cause you to marginalize and demeanor the recipient would be an excessive way of fulfilling that virtue of generosity. This relationship captures the idea of respect toward another human being that possesses rational thought. With this in mind, I believe that with the recipient would overall benefit a lot more through a caring relationship.

I Volunteer As Tribute!

Some of the main objections to Voluntourism revolve around the idea that voluntourism is only a temporary solution that could potentially cause problems in the future, instead of make a difference.

Despite that, I don’t think it is right to say that voluntourism should be stopped altogether. I think that with proper improvement to the program (more frequent voluntourism groups visiting, continuous turnover), much more substantial differences could be made in whichever third world country. Having said that, I think it is a little unrealistic to put so much weight on a single organization to make a difference such that it is expected to do so every time. I think it takes a continuous effort to really turn things around, and with more investment to voluntourism programs this might be able to be done.

Even so, I think that even though the good effects of voluntourism are only temporary, it still opens up opportunities for people who face time constraints and cannot commit to a project for so long, to do their part in helping. At the same time, I think it also helps to promote the importance of helping those in need. If anything at all, I think that voluntourism serves as a stepping stone. I think to say voluntourism is wrong is to also say that any kind of short-term charity work is also wrong if it doesn't last long.

*edit* In terms of the inequality that was described in Sin’s piece, I think that the “misunderstanding” of culture can go both ways. The Cambodian respondent is failing to understand the difference in culture of the volunteers, the same way the volunteers do not understand how the Cambodians live. And while there is some inequality, I feel like that’s more of a problem with labeling. Perhaps I don’t quite understand the problem with the labels, but I feel like if you’re not so economically stable and need some help, it doesn’t mean you are inferior, neither should it have a negative connotation of any kind. I get that equality is important, but to base equality of economic status doesn’t quite make a lot of sense since it is almost arbitrary. Countries don’t get to decide where they are geographically located, neither do they get to decide their size. Therefore I think that not every single country can achieve economic prosperity at the same time.  

Volunteer Tourism Response

The two most important questions about volunteer tourism seem to be whether people have the appropriate intentions and whether volunteer tourism is effective.  It is difficult to make a case for volunteer tourism when all three pieces critique at least one aspect of the practice, but I am going to try. 

Stupart operates under the assumption that no matter how you look at it, these organizations are unhelpful, or at least only trivially helpful.  I disagree.  I think there are ways to structurally improve programs to improve their usefulness.  Stupart tackles the first question, and provides an important critique of these selfish motivations.  Stupart claims that regardless of the individual’s motive, volunteer tourism displays ignorance about the ways they can help.  Unless it is truly counterproductive, I would say it is a leap to consider this an unethical practice simply because there are more effective and efficient ways to help.  I think it is possible to work with these programs to develop relationships and help individuals’ quality of life.  It is true that some of these programs need to be reworked, but I think it is not necessary to abandon them completely.

Stupart criticizes many aspects of volunteer tourism, one of them being the volunteer’s self-interest.  At the beginning of the semester, we discussed how much intent matters.  If someone does the right thing for the wrong reasons, is it still unethical?  Are we inherently self-motivated individuals? Is it possible to be selfless?  In this case, I do not find it unethical to attempt to improve people’s quality of life in a way that also serves some self-interest of the helper either.  If an individual would prefer to travel to another country to help, it may be slightly selfish, but these programs should be structured in a way that makes this desire feasible.  The sad reality is that people want credit for helping others, and less people will want to make a website than travel to a country they have never seen. 

Stupart seems to find it unethical to be uninformed about how to best serve the needs of individuals in countries that people are volunteering in.  To defend this argument, he explains that orphanages create their own agenda by presenting orphans with parents.  This does not reflect on the individual as much as it does on the structure of the organization.  It is important to be informed about the credibility of the volunteer organization they are working with. On the one hand, I agree with Stupart that individuals should be informed about these organizations so that they are enacting change.  On the other hand, I do not think it is implausible to have successful volunteer tourists as Stupart suggests.  Zakaria mentions the “white savior complex,” and the ethnography challenges the structure of the programs by pointing out that we are assuming an authoritative position, and perpetuate the idea that these individuals are “marginalized and disempowered.”

Stupart argues that the countries develop a dependency on volunteer tourists.  This is another thing that can be fixed.  Establishing programs that do not require that dependency will still help people abroad.  I think it is unfair to say that there are sufficient resources and volunteers abroad who will complete the tasks volunteer tourists complete.  That is an oversimplification.  These programs should be made in a way that doesn't simply throw money at people, but rather work towards improving quality of life or education.

I think that the ethnographic study highlights the complexity of volunteer tourism instead of aggressively contesting the plausibility of volunteer tourism.  In the ethnographic study it seems that positive interaction between people of different cultures is promoted through volunteer tourism.  The positive interaction and trust described in the study is valuable.  I think that it is important to refine these volunteer programs to focus on improving education and providing homes to those in need.