Ethical Applications
Deontology [Kants Formulation]
Kantian Ethics is rooted in Kant's moral philosophy, emphasises duty, rationality and respect for the inherent dignity of all individuals. Kant proposed 3 Formulations for the Categorical Imperatives, which serve as principles for evaluating the morality of actions.
The Formula of Universal Law
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
This formulation asks whether the principles behind genetic engineering and biotechnology could be universal without any contradiction. This means that if genetic engineering is aimed at curing diseases then this should be universalised since it seeks to promote human well- being and alleviate suffering for all. However it should not be universalised if it is used for enhancement of selective traits since that could lead to social inequality or loss of individuality. This also links to the case study involving SCID because the use of gene therapy helped so many and saved lives which means that it should be a universalised law since it aids all.
The Formula of Humanity
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as in the end, never merely as a means"
This principle emphasises the inherent dignity of all human beings and prohibits using people solely as a tool for an end purpose. This means if genetic engineering and biotechnology is used to only cure diseases for individuals and does not use them as a tool then it is acceptable for this formulation. However if it is used for experimentation on humans or animals for the creation of GMOs then it is unacceptable because people are being used merely as tools for an end purpose.
The Formula of Autonomy
"Act as though your will could legislate universal laws through your maxims"
This formulation highlights the importance of autonomy and self - governance, requiring moral agents to act in ways that could rationally guide universal and ethical standards. This means that if individuals involved in the genetic modification give consent then it is ethically allowed. However when genetic engineering imposes changes without consent especially if this means that future generations will be affected then it is not ethical. This also links back to the case study since the nine boys who had gene therapy to get rid of SCID did not give consent themselves to do this, making it unethical even though it was helpful to some extent.
Conclusion:
This shows that Kantian Ethics (Deontology) would agree with genetic engineering to the extent where it was only used to alleviate suffering and cure diseases while keeping the dignity of human autonomy. However it would not agree with this concept if it meant social inequality, discrimination or disregard to the future generations.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that emphasises maximising overall happiness or utility and evaluates actions based on the consequences. This ethical theory can be summarised using these 3 main concepts: Hedonism, Altruism and the Hedonic Calculus, which will be used to come to the conclusion whether biotechnology and genetic engineering would be ethically acceptable.
Hedonism
This is the foundation of Utilitarianism and focuses on the highest amount of pleasure over pain. This means it would agree with genetic engineering if it focused on curing disease, which reduces pain or is used to improve quality of life, which increases pleasure and it would be morally acceptable. However if it is used for superficial enhancement which could create social pressures, reducing happiness, then it is not ethically allowed by Hedonism. This links to the case study since the gene therapy meant increased pleasure to some extent however did result in more pain, although this pain was diminished later meaning that Hedonism would agree.
Altruism
This principle emphasises selfless concern for the well being of others. Utilitarianism supports altruistic actions if they maximise overall happiness. This means that if biotechnology is used for global benefits such as using GMOs to solve world hunger or using genetic engineering to create vaccines then altruism would find it morally acceptable. However if it is used for individual pleasure then it does not correlate with the concept of altruism.
Hedonic Calculus
The Hedonic Calculus is a concept proposed by Jeremy Bentham and offers a systematic way to evaluate the morality of an action by quantifying pleasure and pain. It involves the extent, duration, certainty and intensity. Extent: this means that if genetic engineering helps many people and is aimed at global happiness then it is acceptable. Duration: this means that if genetic engineering provides long term happiness then it is allowed. Certainty: this means that the biotechnology advances must be safe and reliable before it is used, to be morally acceptable. Lastly, intensity: this is when the gene therapy would produce intense happiness and relief for the individual and their family. Overall, if all the factors are met then genetic engineering and biotechnology is moral or else it is not.
Conclusion:
Incorporating hedonism, altruism and the hedonic calculus into Utilitarianism highlights that biotechnology and genetic engineering are generally supported when they maximise happiness and minimise pain while also helping the greatest number of people possible. However, if genetic engineering prioritises superficial or short term pleasures and promotes social equality and ignores altruistic concerns then it is not supported by Utilitarianism.
Situation Ethics
Why would Situation ethics agree?
Situation ethics may strongly support biotechnological advancements that directly heal and alleviate human suffering. This means it would approve of situations such as gene therapy to cure hereditary diseases like cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease. As well as, genetic modifications to crops to enhance nutritional value and address malnutrition in developing countries and personalised medicine based on genetic profiles to improve treatment efficiency. These applications align closely with the principle of agape love, as they directly contribute to human well-being, this indicates the concept of personalism which emphasises that people are most important .
In addition, due to its flexibility and freedom, situation ethics allows for adaptation to new technological developments. As biotechnology evolves, situation ethics can accommodate novel scenarios without being constrained by rigid rules. This means that it will be more accepting of scenarios which may be controversial however can promise a worthwhile end result. This means that research into areas like human embryo gene editing will be approved, if it shows promise for preventing severe genetic disorders since it would result in happiness and pleasure for those who receive the cure.
Furthermore, the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to address environmental challenges or food security issues will be approved since its providing love to those who are suffering due to hunger even though it could have some minor inconveniences, this is a moral decision due to its situation as Fletcher said, "The morality of an action depends on the situation". Moreover, one of the six fundamental principles is that "love decides then and there", which means that there are no rules and in each situation you decide then and there what the most loving thing to do is - in this situation the best decision would be to help and contribute as much love as possible. This also links to the case study where the UK government decided to use gene therapy at Great Ormond Street Hospital because while there were a few minor problems in the beginning, they adjusted the modification of the genes which allowed so many life changing cures to many life threatening diseases such as SCID. Situational ethics would agree with this decision made by the UK government because it provided the most love.
Why would Situation ethics disagree?
However, situation ethics would likely express caution about potential unforeseen effects which could cause pain or sadness such as ecological disruptions from the release of genetically modified organisms, long-term health effects of genetic modifications that may not be immediately apparent and societal impacts of widespread genetic enhancements, such as increased inequality or changes in human diversity. Due to this, many of the things that were agreed with previously, may not be as loving as they seem due to their consequences.
While situation ethics are flexible and promote love and justice. It might raise concerns about modification such as the potential for "designer babies" and the commodification of human life, the blurring of lines between therapy and enhancement, which would contradict the spreading of love but instead falsehood and the risk of eugenics or genetic discrimination which would create more hate than love. Situation ethics would not agree with this because it is not the best decision for the most loving thing to do.
Situation ethics emphasises love as justice. It would likely critique aspects of biotechnology that could create inequalities. This means that if there is unequal access to expensive genetic treatments then it is not loving because agape means universal love for everyone and this is discriminating between rich and poor so it would not be approved. This also link to the concentration of biotechnological advancements in wealthy nations or among privileged groups which is not just meaning it is not loving since the third of the six fundamental principles suggests that "love and justice are the same", so situation ethics would not allow this.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, situation ethics would likely advocate for a careful, case-by-case evaluation of biotechnological and genetic engineering applications. It would support advancements that clearly promote human well-being and embody agape love, while cautioning against uses that could lead to harm, inequality, or the erosion of human dignity. This ethical framework would encourage ongoing dialogue and reassessment as the field progresses. It would likely support robust regulatory frameworks and ethical oversight to ensure that biotechnological advancements are guided by principles of love, justice, and the greater good. Ultimately, situation ethics provides a flexible yet principled approach to navigating the complex ethical landscape of biotechnology and genetic engineering. It reminds us to constantly question and evaluate our actions in light of their potential to promote or hinder love and well-being in our ever-evolving technological landscape.
Natural Law
Natural law is rooted in the philosophy of Aristotle and further developed by Thomas Aquinas. It is an ethical theory that emphasises the alignment of human actions with nature's purposes and the fulfilment of human flourishing or eudaimonia (an ancient Greek word meaning "happiness" or "flourishing"). Its core is the Primary and Secondary precepts.
PRIMARY PRECEPTS
Aquinas believed that if we use our reason correctly, all humans will reach the same conclusion about our purpose. The purpose of human beings is set out by Aquinas in the Primary Precept. This shows the 5 precepts' opinion on the question of: if biotechnology is ethical or not.
To live and to protect the innocent:
Biotechnology and genetic engineering could be considered ethical under this precept if they aim to preserve and protect human life. For instance, gene therapies for fatal diseases or genetic modifications to prevent inherited disorders could be seen as fulfilling the obligation to protect life. However, this precept also raises concerns about the ethics of embryonic research and manipulation. The destruction of embryos for stem cell research or the discarding of "unfit" embryos after genetic screening could be viewed as violations of the duty to protect innocent life. Additionally, the potential risks of introducing unintended genetic changes that could harm future generations must be carefully weighed against the potential benefits.
To reproduce:
From this precept's perspective, genetic engineering that enhances reproductive capabilities or treats infertility might be considered ethical. For example, techniques that allow couples with genetic disorders to have healthy children could be seen as supporting the natural law of reproduction. However, this precept also raises questions about the ethics of artificial reproductive technologies (ART) that separate reproduction from the natural conjugal act. Some argue that technologies like in vitro fertilisation violate the natural order of reproduction. Furthermore, the possibility of designing "enhanced" babies or selecting embryos based on genetic traits could be seen as an unnatural interference with the reproductive process, potentially violating this precept.
To educate the young:
This precept could support genetic interventions that improve cognitive functions or treat learning disabilities, as they would enhance our ability to educate future generations. For instance, gene therapies that prevent or treat conditions like Down syndrome or autism could be seen as ethical under this precept. However, the prospect of cognitive enhancement through genetic engineering raises complex ethical questions. While it might improve educational outcomes, it could also create unfair advantages and exacerbate societal inequalities. There's also the risk of reducing human diversity and potentially altering what we consider "normal" cognitive function.
To live peacefully in society:
Genetic engineering that promotes social harmony could be viewed favourably under this precept. For example, research into the genetic basis of aggression or antisocial behavior might lead to interventions that reduce violence and promote peaceful coexistence. However, this raises significant ethical concerns about individual autonomy and the potential for genetic determinism. There's also the risk of misuse by authoritarian regimes seeking to create more compliant populations. Furthermore, genetic enhancements could create new forms of discrimination and social division, potentially undermining societal peace.
To worship God:
This precept presents perhaps the most complex ethical considerations. Some argue that genetic engineering represents an overreach of human authority, encroaching on God's domain as the Creator. They might view genetic modification as "playing God" and a violation of the natural order established by divine wisdom. However, others might argue that our God-given intellect and the ability to develop these technologies are themselves gifts to be used responsibly for the betterment of humanity. The ethical use of genetic engineering could be seen as an extension of our role as stewards of creation, using our knowledge to heal and improve life in accordance with God's will.
In conclusion, while biotechnology and genetic engineering offer tremendous potential benefits, they also present significant ethical challenges when viewed through the lens of Natural Law. The key lies in carefully balancing these precepts, ensuring that technological advancements respect the sanctity of human life, the natural order of creation, and our responsibilities as stewards of God's world
SECONDARY PRECEPTS:
Aquinas believed that we can apply our reason to work out Secondary Precepts that will tell us how to fulfil the Primary Precepts in particular concepts - in this case; if genetic engineering and biotechnology is ethical.
Preservation of Life - "Do not kill the innocent" could support genetic therapies that cure fatal diseases, as they preserve life. The same precept might oppose genetic experiments that risk human life or manipulate embryos.
Ordered Society - "Respect the rule of law"could endorse biotechnology that adheres to strict regulatory frameworks and ethical guidelines. It might oppose genetic enhancements that could create societal inequalities or disrupt social order.
Worship God - "Appreciate and value the beauty"of creation could support biotechnology that helps us understand and improve upon nature. "Pray and go to church" might be interpreted as opposing interference with God's creation through genetic engineering.
Education - "Pursue knowledge and truth" could support biotechnological research as a means of expanding human knowledge. It might oppose genetic enhancements that create unfair advantages in learning, potentially disrupting equal access to education.
Reproduction - "Do not abort, don't use contraception" could be extended to oppose genetic manipulation of embryos or artificial reproductive technologies. However, it might support genetic therapies that enable infertile couples to reproduce naturally.
It's important to note that secondary precepts are not as absolute as primary precepts and can be interpreted differently based on circumstances. The application of these precepts to modern biotechnology and genetic engineering requires careful consideration and may vary depending on the specific context and potential outcomes of the technology in question.
Conclusion:
Natural Law theory would likely not provide a clear-cut "ethical" or "unethical" verdict on biotechnology and genetic engineering as a whole. Instead, it would likely judge specific applications and technologies on a case-by-case basis. The theory would likely support biotechnological advancements that clearly preserve life, reduce suffering, and enhance human flourishing without significantly altering the fundamental nature of human beings or creating societal disruptions. However, it would likely oppose applications that pose significant risks to human life, interfere dramatically with natural processes of reproduction and development, or have the potential to create deep societal divisions. Ultimately, the ethical status of biotechnology and genetic engineering under Natural Law would depend on how these technologies are developed, regulated, and applied, and whether they are seen as working in harmony with or in opposition to the fundamental precepts of preserving life, maintaining social order, and respecting the divine order of creation.