A eternal debate

[wheresthecorporal]

Okay so I have a school assignment on the morality of the whole genetic engineering scene,

Its the good old debate, is it moral?

 

Who out there is willing to give us some opinions,

I do ask though that you post whether or not your happy to be quoted on your opinions,

 

Best regards

 

The Corporal

[lemur]

I don't think genetic engineering in itself is moral or immoral. Each specific application can be morally evaluated in its purpose and consequences. Is it moral, for example, to genetically engineer crops purely for the purpose of preventing subsequent seeds from being collected and used without buying new seeds from the distributor? What about engineering a crop variety that grows better in a wider range of temperatures and is more pest-resistant reducing the need for pesticide? Simply saying that genetic engineering is immoral would be like saying that all engineering is immoral, I think.

[Marat]

The only rational morality is one based on ethical positivism, that is, on the principle that things are good and should be permitted if they promote net human happiness as measured in concrete terms of the actual material and emotional benefits to real, living people. Nothing artificially constructed as sacred in itself -- apart from its tangible value to real humans -- should be allowed to have any value against human interests.

 

In the context of the present debate, the supposed 'right' or 'claim' of nature to remain intact without human interference is an otiose sacredness-in-itself which can claim no authority against real human needs, so the natural order has no entitlement to resist what humans need to do with it to serve their interests.

 

Of course every action within the scope of promoting human interests has to be subjected to a risk-benefit analysis, and in genetic engineering there are always risks of potentially unintended consequences to human health through unanticpated environmental side-effects. But these costs have to be measured in terms of what human interests they threaten, not in terms of any threat to values which cannot be measured in their satisfaction of human needs.

 

Genetic engineering has been going on for thousands of years, though slowly, through selective breeding of plants and animals. Now technology permits it to proceed more rapidly, but that shouldn't transform the entire ethical evaluation. Perhaps the greatest ethical concern is that up until now, human culture has been able to project its values into the future only through inculcating the values of the present generation in the next generation. But now human culture might soon in theory be able to project its values by redesigning the human genetic code to reflect those values, so that if tall, blonde, cruel, self-interested genuises are now valued, the disposition to be such a human could be build into the genes so that the next generation would have no choice but to represent the values of the present generation. This would limit the freedom of the next generation to change, which is an essential value of a democratic and open society. 'Soft' projection of the values of the present generation through schooling, religion, law, and other cultural institutions leaves more ambit for self-determination in the next generation.