Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
(Anything proposed at the “ought” level should occasion major
moral
discussion, but genuine moral discussion, not fear or theology posing as
morality.)
Are there any other sorts of traits that we can a priori argue would be
wrong to genetically engineer? Certainly, I would think, anything that
would create a danger to others in society. This might include that
favored example from Jean Claude Van Damme or Dolph Lundgren B
movies, genetically engineering for a warlike, merciless temperament and
enhanced physical ability. It is the former, not the latter, that merits
concern.
Or suppose, probably per impossibile, that we could render someone
immortal or create a life span of one thousand years in select individu-
als. There are a variety of reasons this would be prima facie wrong. In
the first place, such a person would be effectively alienated from the love
and friendship of others. If their secret were known, they would be never-
ending targets of resentment. In addition, they would be subject to con-
stant heartbreak, outliving lovers, friends, spouses, and, most cruelly if
the trait(s) were not passed down, their own children.
In a deeper, philosophical sense, the absence of death as a constant
possibility might well, in a Heideggerian sense, negate the very basis of
human existence, that is, the realization of “the possibility of the impos-
sibility of one's being,” from whence issues the call for authenticity of
one's “project.” Given unlimited time, there is no imperative for sepa-
rating authentic concerns from inauthentic ones.
Moreover, I would argue that it is wrong to genetically engineer traits
in people that would radically separate them from the companionship of
other humans—for example, if we could engineer people to live only
underwater, their forms of life would differ enough from that of other
humans that they would be permanently alienated, physically, culturally,
and psychologically. Even if they had a peer group of similarly engineered
people, they would inevitably suffer fear, loathing, and ostracism from
“normal people,” and surely one would need to
choose
such a way of
life, as opposed to having it thrust upon them. (Vide the monster's argu-
ments in Mary Shelley's
Frankenstein
novel.)
What of correcting genetic diseases at the genomic rather than somatic
level? I consider such an action obligatory given the technical ability to
accomplish this at an acceptably minimal level of risk. Religious tradi-
