Theory of Precedence

Theory of Precedence is based on the idea of practicality. What is practicality? The root
of practicality is practical, which in turn comes from the Old French word practique, meaning "fit
for action." A person's practicality can also be called common sense, and an object or action's
practicality has to do with how efficient or suitable it is (vocabulary.com).
Our theory focuses on the idea that an act is valid if it is done in order to achieve a
beneficial endpoint. However, the availability of resources (income, health, and capability) and
the long-term effects must be prioritized in the decision making process. Our theory can be related
to the theory of Pragmatism by William James and Charles Peirce. It is similar to the Theory of
Pragmatism in that both are practical. However, in contrast with James and Pierce’s theory, our
theory – Theory of Precedence – follows a specific order in determining the course of action to be
taken. Of primary importance in the decision making process is income. Not everything in life is
free. People rely on money to survive. Second is health, it is important because health is a major
determinant whether a person can satisfactorily perform the act. Third factor to consider is the
capability of a person. He or She should be physically, emotionally, and mentally able to perform
the specific act. The last factor to consider is the long-term effect – it must be beneficial to the
individual.
These days, our society is bombarded with a lot of issues and problems. There are a lot
of solutions but some of them are inapplicable especially to those who do not have enough
resources to overcome these predicaments. Our theory provides a more practical solution to the
different issues present today.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

 Decisions are not subjective  Decision tends to be self-serving

 It is practical  Decision may not be morally justifiable
 Beneficial for most people to some religions

The Theory of Precedence can be applied to issues such as genetic engineering and birth
deformities. Our theory supports genetic engineering as long as it is done to correct or improve
birth deformities. However, the income, health, capability of the person, and the long-term effects
of the action should be considered.
Genetic engineering has lots of advantages, and it can be used in advantage to birth
deformities. Now if we're talking about conducting genetic engineering on a human being, it must
be done with a consent. An example of illness that can be cured through genetic engineering or
gene-editing is Sickle Cell Anemia. It can cause lifelong pain and even organ damage. But by
editing blood stem cells could cure this disease. Another example is human immunodeficiency
virus or HIV. Physicians might edit a patient's immune cells to delete the CCR5 gene, conferring
the resistance to HIV.
To cut things short, if it's done for a greater purpose like eliminating genetic defect or
hereditary disease or any autoimmune disease through genetic engineering, then it is morally
just, since it will do more good, disregarding the fact that the principle of inviolability of life was
violated (alteration of any part of the body). As long as there's a consent from the patient and it's
done for the best interest, then we're considering it as a morally justifiable act. (Autonomy was
respected with the hint of utilitarianism). However, if we're talking about genetically altering the
fetus to the liking of the parents, then my stand is still the same, the fetus is not yet an autonomous
being, it is not conscious, so the decision must be only done by the immediate relative of the
patient (parents), again as long as it done with the best of good interest, then it's a morally
justifiable act.