Aristotelian and Kantian Perspectives on Gene Editing Embryos

CRISPR Gene Editing: Ethics

The moral permissibility of genetically modifying embryos and allowing them to take to term is a complex and highly debated issue. Some argue that genetic modification of embryos can be a valuable tool for improving human health and well-being, and that it is therefore morally permissible to allow genetically modified embryos to take to term. Others, however, argue that genetic modification of embryos raises serious ethical concerns, and that it is therefore morally impermissible to allow genetically modified embryos to take to term.

Arguments for this practice are that, first of all, it has the potential to reduce the occurrence of genetic diseases and disorders. Second, it could lead to better quality of life for those with existing genetic issues (BBC, 2019). Another factor in justifying it is that it could lead to improved treatments and cures for a range of medical conditions. It is also argued that it could help reduce the burden of care and financial costs associated with treating genetic disorders. Finally, proponents of the practice suggest that it could help reduce the suffering of people and their families affected by genetic diseases.

However, there are also many arguments against the moral justification of the practice. For instance, one argument against is that it could lead to the creation of “designer babies”, where parents choose the traits of their children before they are born. Another argument against is that the long-term effects of modifying the human genome are unknown (Cyranoski & Ledford, 2018). Third, it could lead to an increased risk of unintended genetic mutations. It could also lead to a greater risk of discrimination based on genetic differences. Finally, the practice is not morally justifiable as it could lead to the unacceptably high cost of genetic modification, making it inaccessible to people who need it the most.

Whether or not I support gene edits would depend on the context. In general, I believe that gene edits should be used carefully, as there are potential risks associated with them. For example, gene edits could result in unexpected consequences, including unintended health risks or changes to the gene pool (Raposo, 2019). Additionally, there is a risk of creating genetic inequality, as gene edits could be used to give certain individuals or groups an advantage over others (Cyranoski, 2020). For these reasons, I believe that gene edits should only be used in cases where a clear benefit is demonstrated and that all potential risks are thoroughly evaluated. Those instances, I would say, would be when it is used to treat or prevent serious diseases or disabilities. However, I still have to say that gene editing raises serious ethical concerns, such as the potential for creating unequal or unfair advantages for those who have access to the technology, or the potential for unintended consequences that could harm individuals or society as a whole.

In general, the moral justification of gene editing depends on a number of factors, including the specific use of the technology, the potential risks and benefits, and the ethical principles that are applied in evaluating the technology. From a utilitarian and deontological ethical perspective, one has to consider the common good and the duty that people owe to society. Ultimately, the moral permissibility of gene editing will likely continue to be a matter of debate, and will require ongoing consideration and discussion by experts and society as a whole.

Kantian ethics, which is based on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, emphasizes the importance of treating all rational beings as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. According to Kantian ethics, the actions of the scientists who created genetically edited embryos could potentially be considered morally justified if they were motivated by a desire to improve human health and well-being, and if they respected the inherent dignity and value of the embryos themselves (Wyly, 2021).

Plato, who was a Greek philosopher of the ancient world, believed that moral virtue was the result of living a good life in accordance with the eternal and unchanging Forms or Ideas. According to Plato, the actions of the scientists who created genetically edited embryos could potentially be considered morally justified if they were motivated by a desire to improve the human condition, and if they were guided by the eternal and unchanging ideals of truth, beauty, and goodness (da Silva & Viana, 2019).

Aristotle, who was another Greek philosopher of the ancient world, believed that moral virtue was the result of living a good life in accordance with the natural order of things (Politi & Grinbaum, 2020). According to Aristotle, the actions of the scientists who created genetically edited embryos could potentially be considered morally justified if they were motivated by a desire to promote the natural flourishing and well-being of human beings, and if they were guided by the principles of reason and wisdom.