Philosophy

Name:

Course:

Lecturer:

Date:

Philosophy

1. I personally disagree with Matt Ridley’s claim. This is because the science behind eugenics is purely unethical because human beings are not like other domestic or wild animals whose production ought to be improved by the mutual segregation of those perceived to be weak. In addition, this philosophy goes against the basic tenet of human dignity. Human beings have the right to life and reproduce. Science ought to look for ways of curing the disabilities evident in the gene pool but not to cull of those deemed unfit. The second part of the statement is indeed true because the coercion was indeed very wrong. Although the government is vested with the power to enact and execute law, this power ought not to be abused for pure political means. The government ought not to forget its obligation of protecting the rights of its citizens irrespective of their health, gender or political affiliation.

2. I personally do not advocate for eugenics because I am a strong believer in the sanctity of life. Eugenics is a selfish act of wiping out families that exhibit malignant traits. The main weakness to the idea is that no one is perfect and thus it is hard to draw the line between whom to wipe out and whom to retain. When considering the whole idea of eugenics, one tends to make the mistake of making a false judgment based on the source of the idea. The genetic fallacy behind eugenics is formed when we tend to conclude that eugenics is bad because it originated in Germany in the Nazi regime. The Nazi regime used this ideology to propagate their atrocities in their malignant quest for a pure generation. During this time, millions of people were killed. This history tends to form a fallacy in ones conclusion about eugenics.

3. Tom Shakespeare negates to the thought the use of genetic engineering to correct genetic disabilities. His basis of argument is that he does not think that it is morally eliminate people with disabilities from the society. The reason to this was probably that he himself had an inherited short stature. He could there not agree with the notion that prejudiced persons like him. Matt Ridley on the other hand advocates for eugenics. He is of the thought that persons that exhibit genetic deficiency that are inheritable ought to be prohibited from transferring the same defectives to future generations.

Whose Body It Is Anyway

4. Stokes’s physician faces what is referred to as an ethical dilemma? He is supposed to respect his patient’s decision about the use of any of his specimen and at the same time, he is obligated by his scientific nature to do the greater good of using her scientific skills to find a cure and possibly saving the lives of millions of people who are HIV positive. If I were in Dr. Sharma’s shoes, the best way to reason this out is consider the option that has a greater good. This is probably because in whatever option one chooses to take, one will end up sacrificing another moral obligation. With this in mind, it is best to take on the most pressing moral obligation and sacrifice the least. I would therefore go against the patient’s request and use a sample of his blood for research, and if luck were on my side, I would then end up saving the lives of millions of people who are HIV positive.

5. The commercialization of the human tissue, including the use of genetic material from indigenous people is a very controversial issue. For research to be carried out, then samples have to be used. At times, the acquisition of this samples involves the purchasing them in monetary terms. The foundation behind this whole idea is understandable because in essence, what costs you nothing is nothing. Some people often sacrifice a lot in order to gain these samples. It is therefore necessary that they be compensated for their sacrifices.

6. Kass considers that there are indeed moral values that are violated in cloning. He argues that there exists a human right to a unique identity. This means that there is a moral obligation to protect this right hence cloning ends up violating this right. The right to a unique identity refers to there being no repetitive occurrence of similar genome. Every living entity has its own signature genome that is not correspondent to any other existing entity. With this view, the specific entity has a right to its unique identity. Cloning the entity will mean replicating this very genetic signature rendering the entity to have its right violated. It is in this light that Kass argues out that it is morally wrong to have another person cloned because it will result in a replication of the original person’s unique genetic signature. This will render the person to have had his or her right to a unique identity violated.

7. Making defers from begetting in that in begetting or natural procreation, two opposite sexes join in intercourse where a fertile egg is fertilized to give rise to another living being of them same species. In the case of human beings, the human being procreated exhibits humanistic attributes of being aspiring and erotic. The progeny represents the two cohabitants and is exactly as they are. In making another human being through cloning, the progeny is does not resemble the makers but the makers determine what the progeny will look like. The makers intend and design the traits of the cloned subject. In most cases, the cloned subject does not have erotic desires and hence cannot be able to procreate.

8. Death is one of man’s most perplexing mysteries. The moment one is born, one starts the inevitable journey towards his or her death. Depending on the person, and ones contribution to humankind, there are those who prefer hastening their deaths whereas there are those who would like to prolong their date with destiny. However, irrespective of ones’ wants, death is inevitable. The question therefore beckons whether I would like to have an extension to my ‘expiry date’. Given half the chance, I would not hesitate to take it. This does not fail to come with a condition. The condition is that I remain to be healthy and able to perform not old and worn out. This is because I believe that everyone has an obligation to contribute to this world. With this in mind, the longer I live, the greater the contribution that I would make. On the question whether I would prefer germ line or somatic cell therapy, my answer would be somatic cell therapy. This is because with somatic cell therapy, I would only be responsible for my own decision. With somatic cell therapy, the effects of the genetic engineering would not be passed to my progeny. On the other hand, germ line would result with my entire progeny being affected by my decision whether wise or unwise.

“The Island”

9. I consider the movie “The Island” to be one of the best science fiction movies to have been ever directed. The movie takes on an issue that is constantly haunting people’s minds and incorporates stunning action sequences to come up with a splendid work of art. The movie delves into pertinent scientific issues concerning the use of scientific accomplishments for economic gains. The ethics behind these pertinent issues are overwhelming. The themes in the movie highlight the current concerns in the present concerning the rights of poor individuals and prison inmates, medical ethics, organ transplantations, and many more.

The movie has its foundation on the idea that at a given time in the future, the aristocrats of this world will be able to finance a scientific project that will involve a private laboratory to grow body parts so that the aristocrats may attain immortality. This is to ensure that they continue with their unhealthy lifestyles and not have to pay for it heath wise that is. These unhealthy lifestyles include risky sports, drug abuse, alcoholism and the consumption of junk foods.

10. Although the idea does seem like a long shot, I believe that it is an achievable fete. In the recent past and present, there has been unprecedented and considerable progress in the realm of medical science. Research into DNA and RNA modification and replication is so profound that a breakthrough is probably in the offing. The moral degradation because of economic gains is another evidence of the possibility of the theme of this movie becoming a reality. At the moment, there are plans to use genetic engineering techniques on pigs to enable them grow human organs like hearts that can be later transplanted at a hefty price of course. The procedure to accomplish such is highly expensive and thus only requires wealthy individuals to fund and access such services. The performance of the same features on human beings is not far fetched. This is because pigs like humans; they possess humanistic attributes like memories, emotions and families. They have working heightened senses and consciousness. Pigs are known to have their own linguistic skills, which they use to communicate to each other and other modes and forms of expression. For the movie to become a reality, it would only require the pigs in this case to be replaced by human beings and more specifically inmates. This means that the inmates can be treated like products to be slaughtered and have their organs harvested for the wealthy individuals.

If the commercialization of human organs is already in the offing, then there is the possibility of having human beings having to grow organs that are later harvested and sold for the wealthy persons. The sale of human organs is already going on. There are instances where persons have been bribed into selling their organs like kidneys. In more bizarre cases, there are incidents, there are those who have been abducted and have had their organs harvested without their consent. These organs are later sold in the black market for the highest bidder. It is said that the love of money is the root of all evil and that money or wealth can open up closed doors and opportunities. This makes it all the possible for the movie to be a real life experience in some parts of the world.