Debate Info

Debate Score:5
Total Votes:5
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Debate Creator

Nomoturtle(780) pic

Genetic Engineering and Identity Ethics

If you have an egg which is genetically engineered to have its DNA altered so that it will not suffer from a genetic disease in its lifetime, have you killed or removed from existence the person that that egg would have eventually become? Given that both our bodies and minds/selves are, by the opinion of the scientific community, to have been made from a combination of our genes and our environment.
If it were not fixing an incurable disease but an enhancement for something like strength would that be any different?
Intelligence Enhancement?
How about adding entirely new appendages or forms that could look like that of other species entirely, known or not?
Add New Argument
1 point

If everyone were a genius, no genius' idea would come to fruition as none would submit to a genius and work for them.

If all were adapted for math and science, there'd be no artists or anyone of any form of entertainment at all. People would die of boredom. If we make people content with boredom, they will be Einstein IQ but have no need to fight what is understood in order to understand more as they are OK with being bored.

In other words, a genius race simply cannot sustain itself, we need sexy dumb women to encourage men to be a little foolish at times, we need workers, not just thinkers.

1 point

Removing a disease, adding strength, or adding limbs does not delete a person who might have been. If a parent teaches their kid to play baseball, have they eliminated the football player he might have been?

Parents already have a large degree of control over environmental factors that form their children. Genetic modification simply expands the sphere of influence that parents have.

1 point

But doesn't this go further into supporting a true Plutocracy?

I mostly agree with you. I would say that teaching a kid to play baseball removes the possible personality of the football player version of the kid. I'd say the GM is pretty much the same injustice. I'd agree that that is fine, as you seem to think, but another question; do you think parents should have this sort of influence over children? Do we give absolute ownership of children to parents in this matter?

Amarel(5284) Clarified
1 point

do you think parents should have this sort of influence over children? Do we give absolute ownership of children to parents in this matter?

Someone/something will naturally have influence over children. Chance has determined our genetic features thus far. There is nothing more wrong with GE than there is with childhood education. They aren't so dissimilar.

Parents typically determine the environment. Some parental figure has to be there to provide that influence because that's how we work. The lack of parental influence doesn't lead the child to self-determination, but rather to animal regression. The child would be directed by blind instinct rather than by rational faculties provided by parental influence.

This doesn't mean that parents have absolute ownership over their children. Children are human beings and are thus provided with moral and legal protections. Parents therefore have moral and legal obligations that they do not have with typical property.