Essay Sample on Ethics of Eugenics

Introduction

Eugenics can be defined as the science that involves the modification of the human population through selective breeding. The primary objective of undertaking eugenics is the improvement of the genes in the human race. The concept was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton and originally meant well-born (Semach, 1295). He is known to have developed the word in Britain as a process through which the desired traits can be bred into those in the upper class of the society as a means to improve the human race. However, the principle could not become popular in Britain, but in other parts of the world such as the United States.

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

Order now

The idea of selective breeding could be approached in two fundamental ways including negative and positive eugenics. Positive eugenics involves the concept of improving the human race by breeding the desired traits. It primarily focuses on the use of various incentives such as stipends and tax breaks to individuals as a way to encourage the bets to reproduce, thus passing down their traits (Sparrow, 143). Therefore, it aimed to provide those individuals with desirable characteristics to have more children as a way to increase the number of the population with these traits in the human race. The central aspect that determined by the altruism of the individual involved in the breeding, since those described as unfit are required not to have children.

The second approach is referred to as negative eugenics and is usually used when altruism does not seem to work. It involves the use of coercion rather than encouragement to ensure that those individuals defined as unfit are prevented from reproducing, usually against their will. The methodologies employed in negative eugenics include the use of marriage restrictions, sterilization, and use of euthanasia, in extreme cases. The persons who are mostly considered for this type of eugenics are the poor people, mentally ill, those who have deficient genes, and people of color. These people are prevented from reproducing because it is believed that it will taint the gene pool, and in return bring down the human race.

In the change of genetic makeup of an individual, it is bound that a third will be involved in the reproductive choices of couple and individuals, which is usually a personal matter. The policy and standard are generally set by individuals that are not included in the making of the children (MacKellar and Christopher, 53). In the world today, these actions will usually incorporate either coercion or force because it is hard for individuals to agree with standards or policies that are set by third parties, whose vision is the forcing of improving on a population that is unwilling.

However, it is usually another matter when couples or individuals decide on their own, to employ either genetic knowledge or technologies as a tool to help in the improvement of the genetic makeup and traits of their offspring. With the advancement in technology in recent years, eugenics had offered this option as opposed to when the term was coined. Despite the third party involved in the efforts to alter the genetic makeup that a particular person was born with, the final reproductive choice will come to the individuals or couples. In other words, the concept of eugenics the use of commands as a way to ensure that the population produces children with the desired phenotypic or genotypic traits (MacKellar and Christopher, 53). This type of eugenics is different from the one that will involve either a couple or individual who willingly chooses to use a trait termed as heritable in the fetus, embryo, sperm, or egg, deriving their motivation from the expectation of something desirable.

In the argument against the attempt to use eugenics to help in the creation of children who have desired traits or use of germline genetic engineering to instill desired traits into children generally fall into three categories. These reasons include the inequality that will arise among the population, the worry about compulsion, and the imposition of arbitrary standards of perfection. These three factors are crucial to the discounting of eugenic choices.

Coercion

The concept of the use of force by the institutions or government or any other third party in the reproductive behavior of individuals is undoubtedly morally objectionable with regards to eugenics. The right of an individual to reproduce is one most basic freedoms that are recognized by all the moral theories and international law (Vaughn, 92). These laws and theories support that the reproductive behavior of a person can be interfered by third parties and consist of various hosts of ethical tradition. Thus, the use of force or coercion is unnecessary, when the objective is either to avoid diseases, finding perfection, or in pursuance of health concerning individuals.

Any couple that wishes to reproduce and produce a baby that does not have the risk of either transmitting sickle cell disease or inherit Tay-Sachs disease can willingly undertake eugenics. The couple may even want a child who has a particular color of eyes or hair, or even a child of a specific sex. Therefore, when the couples have informed and make a decision, then their choice if free. So there is no reason to assume that, when such a choice is made it is immoral on the grounds of coercion or use of force.

The Subjectivity of Perfection

Some people find that it is more morally objectionable to pursue perfection compared to coercion. It is argued that it is difficult to define those characteristics that are optimal or perfect clearly. Factors such as environment, circumstances, and culture determine the traits or behaviors that are good or healthy (Camporesi, 354). Therefore, when choosing prejudice and stigma will inevitably be the result of this choice.

The view of the things that are desirable or perfect in a human being is usually the result of culture, taste, and personal experience. However, they are not always due to subjective feelings. Traits such as strength, mathematical ability, physical stamina, acuity of vision, speed, acuity of vision, etc. are usually associated with health in ways that request global assent as to their desirability. Thus, it will be hard to deny that an individual that wanted an offspring who possesses greater physical dexterity or better memory involved his or her prejudices or biases (Semach, 1296). As long as there is no use of force or coercion for individuals to ensure that their offspring have some desirable traits whether healthy or unhealthy, bad or good, it is seen to indicate that it would not be wrong to have choices for the characteristics that the children will have in the name of health. In the absence of compulsion, a parent can be allowed to choose even the shape of the eyebrow or the freckle pattern of their children or any other characteristics so long as the selected trait does not pose any risk to the child or compromise their opportunities (Sparrow, 142). Another factor to consider here is that it is imperative that the parents do not become fixated on this elements obtained that affects the behavior or appearance of the child.

It has been suggested that a parent may agree that their idea of perfection may be to some extent subjective buts still believe that there is no problem in pursuing them. Regarding rearing children, other subjective matters such as teaching them about religions, customs, and hobbies all seem fit. Thus it is difficult to say that the issue of selecting genes to endow one's child is overly subjective.

In recent years there has been an increase in the visits to specialists such as psychoanalysts, cosmetic surgeons, and sports medicine specialists, with people having deformation on the bodies such as prominent noses visiting them. These people visit these specialists with the aim of seeking their versions of perfection, while others are satisfied with their appearance hence do not avail themselves to these specialists. There should not be a restriction to the choice that is available to the parents. Therefore, it should be morally be identified why the parent is permitted to seek the betterment of their children after the birth, but the same asking for genetic alteration for the same reason is considered wrong. Hence, subjectivity should not be an issue when deciding to make a preferred trait in the offspring so long as the required characteristics do not harm or impair the child under question.

Equality

Another factor that is usually considered when objecting the use of eugenics is that the practice will primarily lead to social inequalities. When people are given the opportunity to choose the genetic traits that they want their children to possess, it will lead to a group of genetic over-class being created. This group will possess unfair advantages over the group of children that could not be modified due to reasons such lack of money by their parent hence lack the biological traits and dispositions. Another scenario is the creation of a homogenized society where differences and diversity disappear quickly leading to a group of perfect people, where a disadvantage can only be created as a result of a slight deficiency or disability. Every society is required to have fairness and equity; hence, everyone should be provided with a chance to implement eugenic choices by making them available to everyone. Also, programs that aim to compensate for the variation on the biological endowment should be implemented together with educational opportunities.

Today, in the world there are various ways that the creation of homogeneity where parents make choices for their kids on numerous things such as religious teachings, schools, music lessons, as well as summer camps. All these choices are considered morally licit despite being a homogeneity that is engineered environmentally (Camporesi and Giulia, 19). The social background and the level of education, as well as beliefs and morals, do not provide a sufficiency reason for people to interfere with the choices of the parents.

There are no existing moral principles that provide a sufficient reason that can be used to condemning individually developed eugenic goals. It is shown that there is no difference in allowing a parent to pick a specific trait for their children than teach them about things such as morals and religion. Therefore, in the absence of coercion or force, eugenics is an important aspect that can improve the lives of the human race.

Works Cited

Camporesi, Silvia. "The ethics of the new eugenics." (2015): 353-356.

Camporesi, Silvia, and Giulia Cavaliere. "Eugenics and enhancement in contemporary genomics."Routledge Handbook of Genomics, Health, and Society (2018).

MacKellar, Calum, and Christopher Bechtel, eds. The ethics of the new eugenics. Berghahn Books, 2014.

Semach, Tiffani. "The ethics of the new eugenics." (2015): 1295-1297.

Sparrow, Robert. "Ethics, eugenics, and politics."The future of bioethics: International dialogues(2014): 139-151.

Vaughn, Lewis. Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. WW Norton & Company, 2015.