Argumentative Essay on "Genetic Enhancements and Expectations" by Kelly Sorensem

Introduction

Human beings have endeavored to have useful lives. Therefore, they do all it takes to see to it that they have enhancements that help in making life manageable, and survival easy. It is in this regard that some strategies such as genetic enhancement and environmental enhancement are put into practice. The evolution of human beings saw to an improvement in the manner of how human beings were. However, in recent times, human beings do not depend on evolution. Instead, they depend on enhancement and genetic technology to have improvements in the body functioning as well as some changes in the somatic and gamete cells, to help in the better operation of the body. They also pre-dispose themselves to favorable factors in the environment, to see to it that they excel in all that they do.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Kelly Sorensen discusses genetic enhancements and expectations. In his article, he addresses the issue of environmental enhancement and genetic enhancement, trying to differentiate the two. Sorensen also tries to give light on what he thinks the areas that the state should put restrictions on since such restrictions are deemed essential. He goes ahead and talks about expectations, and how they are tied to the arguments therein. After all his claims and arguments, Sorensen claims that "argument simply fail to notice the moral weight of expectations. State restrictions on genetic enhancements are more justifiable than state restrictions on environmental enhancements." (435). However, I have a different thought on the issue, since I think that there should be no preference on where to focus the restrictions, but on both genetic enhancement and environmental enhancement since the two have issues affecting the way the subjects are, and all these are a concern especially when it comes to the negative aspects of the enhancements.

Sorensen claims that genetic enhancements do not lead to a change in identity. The author notes that there is no clarity on whether there is a single identity that is defined in a child. One cannot even tell of the identity of a child basing on their genetic composition. He further argues that if there is some genetic enhancement to some aspects such as immunity, there is no way that such can lead to change in identity. However, I disagree with this proposition. According to Juth, "It has been claimed that genetically modifying a gamete (or early embryo) would turn the being that eventually comes into existence into another being than would have existed if no modification had been made." (417) Therefore, this is a proof that genetic enhancement can lead to a change in identity, especially if this is doneto the gametes. If there isa modification, a new individual is bred, as compared to what would have been if there were no modifications.Therefore, whatever the author claims cannot be true in entirety since there can be a difference due to genetic modification.

Sorensen claims that the state is correct to allow parents use environmental enhancement that promotes inequality. He argues that parents, taking the practice of environmental enhancement with autonomy, have the right to have their children attached to many conditions that are important in having improvements in their lives. Such factors include chess clubs, music lessons, private schools, sports organizations and a proper diet. All these aspects breed inequality in a big way since not all parents have the ability to provide their children with such conditions, even if they wanted to. Despite the fact that he takes note of how some of the factors have an easy way of fulfillment, it is still evident that some may be a load to some parents. Sorensen states that there should be an allowance, even if it is to breed some inequality. From my point of view, not all people are equal. However, there should be goals aimed at having a society that is equal in the manner of distribution of resources and entities that promote equality. If the society believes in such a disposition, it is doomed to fail in some way. The inequality is a direct way of having the society living on the notion of survival for the fittest. Some of those who have no abilities to have their children on environmental enhancement areat peril since they fail to have some of the advantages that come along with environmental enhancement. Therefore, the state is not correction allowing parents use environmental enhancement.I tend to think that the state should promote equality, by creating platforms that are aimed to have environmental enhancement for all, so that human beings are at the same level.

Sorensen challenges the premise that since the government is promising of environmental enhancement, it should also permit the use of genetic enhancement since the two are considered the same practices. He claims that nothing that is intrinsically bound to the two can be used to show a clear difference between them. Therefore, talking of a state allowing one, because it has also allowed the other, does not add up. He tends to think that the differences are external. The external differences are defined by the expectations tied to the aftermath of the two practices. Consequently, he concludes that the external differences are related to the sense and purpose that is linked to the practices, claiming that there are expectations that are unreasonable and not important at all. The morality behind the practices is the criteria that the law uses to have restrictions on the people who use genetic enhancements. He ties the preemption principle to this argument, where a state is at liberty to restrict one class of two similar practices, if it appears to worsen economic inequality or is new, lacking settled expectations. However, I see this as contradictory to the other claims that he has, as he initially talks of the states having an allowance for environmental enhancement, even if this is to be accompanied by inequality. I think that he is correct in attaching the preemption principle, but should be focused on advocating for inequality. The reasons for this is because of the initial talks of the states allowing for environmental enhancement with inequality, which is a point that I refute.

The author claims that expectations stand to have moral importance, especially when it comes to autonomy in practices. Autonomy makes people protect things in meaningful ways. He claims that the expectations should be used to offer justifications for the things that people do, regardless of the setbacks and repercussions that may be tied to them. To add to this, he claims that there are many noble issues that have been met with repercussions and disasters. I disagree with this claim, as it is directly tied to what consequentialism advocates for. According to Suikkanen, "Options can always be ranked regarding how much aggregate value their consequences have." ( 1) The implication is that the end should always justify the means. I disagree with what Sorensensays, as he claims that if there are reasonable expectations, an action is justifiable, even if there are repercussions that are tied to this. The end should not always justify the means.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Sorensen has had some excellent account of both genetic and environmental enhancement. Some of his views are correct. However,I disagree with what he concludes, since he claims that the state has should restrict genetics enhancement but not environmental enhancement. The reasons why I am against his claims is because he is not keen on the equality, as well as the conditions that other human beings live in, especially if they have no abilities to have environmental enhancement.This would translate to being an inferior people, which is not right.It is not right to have an allowance to a practice that promotes economic inequality of any degree.

Works Cited

Baylis, Francoise, and Jason Scott Robert. "The inevitability of genetic enhancement technologies." Bioethics 18.1 (2004): 1-26.

Juth, N. "Germline genetic modification, CRSIPR, and human identity: Can genetics turn you into someone else?" Ethics, Medicine and Public Health 2.3 (2016): 416-425.

Sorensen, Kelly. "Genetic enhancements and expectations." Journal of medical ethics 35.7 (2009): 433-435.

Suikkanen, Jussi. "Consequentialism, Constraints, and Good-Relative-to." Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3.1 (2008): 1-9.