Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Social Ethics Thesis

Social Ethics Thesis



|Views: 441|Likes:
Published by lchoud
Preliminary thesis on the use of cosmetic gene reprogramming and its ethical consequences for society, mainly its implications for allowing a better world. The examination of societal issues and the possibilities for change, at the root of which is individual genetic freedoms, and the consequences of self-defined identity. Rough draft exploration of the use of gene reprogramming to enable a more free, equal society, and to eliminate wars and conflict.
Preliminary thesis on the use of cosmetic gene reprogramming and its ethical consequences for society, mainly its implications for allowing a better world. The examination of societal issues and the possibilities for change, at the root of which is individual genetic freedoms, and the consequences of self-defined identity. Rough draft exploration of the use of gene reprogramming to enable a more free, equal society, and to eliminate wars and conflict.

More info:

Published by: lchoud on Jan 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Prelim thesis on ethics and societal justice
\\With all the argument over colour and race, the solution lies simply increating a society in which colour and race are indeterminate. In other words, eachperson will be able given the opportunity at one point in their life to choose physicalphenotype, through the use of gene reprogramming, leading to a society which nolonger causes people to waste time and energy over matters of pure superficialappearance. Analogous to the cosmetic aspects of gene therapy, the eventoccurring once will ensure government records of each person’s chosen phenotype,at the same time reducing the cosmetic genes of pigmentation to their properrealm, a personal matter of appearance only.Pertaining to all the incidences an individual feels outcast, ignored, hurt, ordenied opportunities because of skin or hair colour, one realizes that each incidenceis based on the same foundational belief: that we can define a person strictly on thebasis of their phenotype (hair, skin, eye colour). To one who has felt mislabeled orcategorized in a painful way, it comes out of the deep-rooted problem that societyfears to dismantle the linkage between appearance and intrinsic qualities. Isphenotype truly indicative of who a person is? When one is examined, does the factthat there is red hair or blue eyes or dark skin contain this person’s intelligence orability or personality? The certain truth is that there is no link between the genesthat control phenotype and the factors of intelligence, character, or ability. Outwardappearances serve no purposes except to provide a cosmetic profile with which tofunction in the world, the tiny DNA change amongst billions of genetic code that isthe outer layering on a person. This phenotypic profile is what allows us to have anidentity and work in the world, so people know who one is by seeing their face. Butthere is no linkage between this profile and other aspects that in fact define aperson, namely across the broad spectrum of personality, character, creativity,ability, and world view. Phenotype has no genetic correlation with any of thesefactors. The availability of a gene reprogramming event, once in each person’s life,is the achievement of personal freedom and ending of the tyranny of phenotypicallinkages that society relies on.First of all, the human genetic code is universally shared property owned byall mankind. The idea that humanity comprises one entity, that humans, or homosapiens, are one species means that across cultures and races, the basic humangenetic code itself is shared property. If the human race were comprised of manyseparate species, it would make sense that each species has the right to its owngenetic colouring and common DNA characteristics, but since it is widely recognizedthat there is one species: the human race, then the genetic colourings of all theethnicities across the world belongs to only the human race in its entirety. The genereprogramming event can therefore allow any human being (above and beyond 25 a recognized age of maturity) to choose one phenotypic look for themself that will
be recorded in government databases, to prevent crime, and go on with lifethereon.We are, all together, one humankind. Any human has the right to use thegenetic programming of anything within the human race itself, including differentcolours of hair, eyes, and skin. However, properties that exceed the boundaries of the human race, such as supernatural hair colours or abilities of other species,would not be within the property of human beings. For example, unnatural fur typeslike pink or blue, or the ability to fly by growing wings, would be non-human traitsand therefore not allowed to be accessed by human persons to modify their owngenetic codes. The reason for this is based on the past. We have seen thedevelopment of many societies with different phenotypes. For example, we haveSweden with a preponderance of light hair and eyes, Italy with dark hair and variedeyes, China with tan skin and dark hair and eyes, Kenya with dark skin and eyes,and Australian aborigines with dark skin, light hair, and dark eyes. None of thesesocieties have died out due to their phenotypes. We cannot, therefore, associateany phenotype with physical health, mental intelligence, or other intangibleabilities. The allowal of humans to choose amidst the human genetic phenotypiccode is a recognition of our shared humanity and a prevention of extreme geneticengineering, such as growing eagle wings or shark eyesight. Because there are nosocieties on earth with inhuman traits, such as blue hair, or bat wings, we cannotallow such engineering without knowing the ramifications. So the technology islimited to human physical cosmetic traits only, since such instances will have nodanger of causing the downfall of any societies. The commonality and universalityof the human race allows any members wherewithin to access and modify DNA afterother members of the human race, but only the human race.Concurrently, a gene reprogramming event will correct inbalances in thestandards of beauty around the world. It is a researched fact that in non-westerncountries, pale is desired. Women in East and South Asia routinely buy skin-lightening creams, and even many political leaders of African countries choosemultiracial wives in the community. What does this mean if one is able to choose askin, hair, or eye colour (only once) in their life? That pale blondes will no longer bespecial. The epitome of exclusivity and rareness, the blonde female, will becomeeasily achieved by anyone, where in rendered non-unique and at least less special.Women of darker colouring will no longer feel common, being ignored by the mediasurrounding one. When something is achievable to the masses, it is no longerviewed as extremely valuable or special. Only then will women of various ethnicitiesbe viewed more equally and as beautiful in the eyes of the men of variousethnicities, who will no longer feel the need to chase the rare. It is easy for slogansto say that these men should learn to love the women for their natural colour tones,to not chase after the paler is beautiful ideal, but the truth is through centuries,even milleniums of human cultural development, people keep chasing after therare. For unfathomable cause, it appears due to the rarity of such females, and not
that this actual phenotype is linked to intrinsic qualities. The only true way to createmore equality for different appearances is to make access available, so that blondehair, or pale skin is “on the market,” no longer holding social stratification value.Not only this, but also the availability of choosing phenotype can aid inending discrimination in the workplace. In many Western countries, there have beenlaws put into place for affirmative hiring procedures, laws that prevent companiesfrom arbitrarily discriminating against employees. But what about other well-off economies like Japan or Brazil? There exists unspoken bias against dark-skinnedworkers, especially in major industries like fashion or television, and the truth is thatthis bias can’t be regulated or even directly pinpointed. Only with the allowance of choosing colours will true discrimination end in the future wealthy nations. Equallyimportant, it is the hidden truth that there still exists discrimination against high-wage jobs or new employees due to darker skin tones. The existence of the abilityto choose one’s skin, eye, or hair colour will enable people to judge non-superficialqualities as more important, since one is unable to know whether a person who isdark was once light or light when once dark. The only qualities that one canevaluate others by must pertain to inner traits, factors of intelligence, agility, truequalifications for the job. Discrimination in the workplace will become nonsensicalbecause physical attribute becomes nothing more than a cosmetic event. The truth is that this technology exists and has existed since the dawn of humanity. Inventors around the world have engineered ways for humans to changetheir phenotype for decades, centuries. And some of these technologies areactuarially harmful, whether it be roasting one’s skin in a tanning bed or going blindfrom colour contacts, or even, like the ancient Greeks, bleaching one’s hair incancer-causing oxides. The most important thing now is that government have theability to regulate this cosmetic technology in a fair, reasonable way. As stated, forthe government to say people have no right to access the common humanphenotypic code, and reprogram their appearances would make no sense. Whilethere is the case of unfairness for people to make themself smarter or moreathletic, since it would directly impact job performance and lead to winningcompetitions or wealth, phenotypic appearance isn’t linked to these factors. It iscosmetic, through and through. It only overrides people’s conventional challengesof what someone is supposed to look like, and allows one to define themself as theywish. The government can regulate this technology adequately by limiting the ageof choosing the gene reprogramming event to 25 years old or older, and allowingpeople to access such technology just once in their lives. People have a freedom tomodify their superficial traits as they wish, but are stopped from excess of continuously doing so, creating a chaotic system, and waste of money.Furthermore, the government must know where to draw the line, neither toofar nor too near. To disallow any form of gene reprogramming would be limitingindividual freedom and perpetuating a society that seethes on phenotypicstereotypes and unfair linkages. However, for people to do whatever is wanted,

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
cpb_psalm91 liked this
sompop_a liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->