Morals in the New Molecular Economy
Published: Last Edited:
Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
- Robert L. Robinson
- Stacey Abbott
Reality exists independent of consciousness. Human beings gain objective knowledge by concept and logic formation based on their perception of reality through the use of their senses. The proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest. Rejects every form of human sacrifice. By This definition, we understand why “reality” is different for different people. According to Ayn Rand, Life is the reward of virtue. And Happiness is the reward of life.”
Faith-Based Ethical View focuses on belief in God and application of the values and morals as implied in the Bible moral purpose of life is to glorify and serve God. According to Alexander Hill, there are three divine characteristics that have direct bearing on ethical decision making and are repeatedly emphasized in the Bible. God is Holy. God is Just. God is loving. Similarities between objectivism and a faith-based approach both agree with human happiness. Objectivism focuses on own happiness faith-based focuses on concern for all men The right of freedom of choice the right of equal protection right to own property respect rights of others.
The differences of reality is what your five senses can experience truth is reality leans more towards a materialistic lifestyle. Stands against all forms of metaphysical, relativism, or idealism ”I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for mine.” It is up to individual to decide what actions are best for his/her own interest. They must decide for themselves what the risk/reward is for each situation faith-based ethical view goal is to serve God/Higher Power. Holiness is composed of four primary elements: Zeal of God, Purity, Accountability and Humility. Faith-based view shows empathy to people’s character: Scripture portrays God as being empathetic; comparing him to a husband loving his wife, a mother nursing her infant, a doctor ministering to the sick and a shepherd binding the wounds of an injured animal.
The New Molecular Economy based on the commercialization of scientific and technological breakthroughs at the molecular level however Scientists are no able to study the human body on a much smaller scale than ever before. Endless possibilities that new technologies in rapid development to enable people to live longer and more healthy lives. How far can/should science take technology? As new technology hits the market, it is out of reach for most to take advantage of, this creates a conundrum that can be addressed in many ways using different ethical approaches.
How Far Should Scientists Take New Technology? Should scientists be allowed free reign as long as they are working to advance medical science to benefit humans?
If we do not allow free reign, where do we draw the line? Some scientists are already cloning animals and talk of cloning humans has entered the scientific world. Some scientists are mapping human DNA in order to alter lives that would otherwise be susceptible to disease/illness. Objectivist approach would allow scientists to do whatever they wanted with whatever tools they had those tools are there for their use. If a profit can be realized from any advancement in technology, somebody will make it in the process of achieving a medical/scientific advancement, new technology or methods will become available to others that would have otherwise not occurred because of moral/ethical dilemmas. This would stifle and slow down technological advancement.
Faith-based approach to molecular economy, must ask one’s self if it is performing a task in order to serve God in best way possible while objectivist approach gives free reign, a faith-based approach is not clearly defined. More gray areas tend to be present with a faith-based approach because of different interpretations of “serving God” A faith-based approach will still allow advancements, but it will limit the parameters the scientific world must stay within according to Biblical principles.
Objectivism and Faith-based ethical approaches have both similarities and differences
Objectivism focuses more on self-interest and materialistic things while faith-based focuses on serving God and having understanding for others with the new molecular economy picking up steam, many ethical issues will rise as technology advances. Objectivism will allow the most freedom with little to no obstacles in the way. Faith-based will place limits, other than what is physically possible, on science/medical research.
Judging from the authority reports managing the good furthermore lawful parts of human cloning, there appears to be an about overall accord that regenerative cloning is contrary with human respect and ought to be denied by law. Generally speaking, this judgment is taken to infer an especially solid good judgment, and. besides, one that is straight out and autonomous of results. The instinct underlying the judgment appears to be that contraceptive cloning is in itself a violation of human nobility, and that it should not be endeavored regardless of the fact that we were sure that it could be carried out without genuine dangers to the potential clone, its environment and public opinion on the loose.
In the meantime, the sureness with which the ethical judgment about contraceptive cloning is communicated is not matched by relating contentions. The instinct appears to be, in a manner of speaking, an ethical extreme, unequipped for being went down by reasons. Cannily, this is an unacceptable circumstance, and it is surely intriguing to watch that a comparing feeling appears to be imparted even by a portion of the creators of these reports. In one of these, from the World Health Organization (WHO), one is astounded to discover something like a welcome to help the quest for legitimizing justification for the judgment of human cloning, accordingly inferring that the accessible contentions are a long way from sufficient to advocate the unequivocal introductory judgment.
Whether this quest for further contentions for a denial of cloning is going to be fruitful, the case is a test for reasoning even as it stands. There are three questions which rationality is called upon to reply: (i) what precisely is the instinct underlying the about unanimous judgment on human cloning? (ii) What idea of human respect is presupposed by this judgment? (iii) How far is this idea of human poise associated with other current employments of the idea? This schedule is definitely dubious (undoubtedly, as unclear as the idea of human poise itself. in any case it blankets at any rate the focal practices that are regularly considered violations of human respect, for example, arraignment for racial or religious reasons, torment, mentally conditioning, and the refusal of the biotic least of presence. It likewise blankets those demonstrations of "instrumentation" (a profoundly misdirecting representation) Kant intended to reject by the second equation of his Categorical Imperative - to treat nobody as a simple means yet dependably additionally as an end in itself (Kant, 1903, p, 428) -, for example, subjection, offering individuals into outside military administration and extreme disciplines for the delight of despots or the masses.
Human cloning has turned into a standout amongst the most disputable issues in contemporary public opinion. Human cloning speaks to generation, yet numerous expect that the consequence of cloning is not another person who is hereditary interesting. This has offered ascent to the judgment of human cloning also some dread for the new improvements of the science (Dyens, 2002/2003; Porter-O'grady, 2003). As stated by Pence (1998a), this has likewise prompted judgments of human cloning from the legislator's side and to fear, obliviousness and "clonophobia" from general society's side. Also, Pence additionally accepts that specialists, bioethicists and researchers have done little to help decrease misinterpretations and apprehensions of the general population.
The pundits of human cloning contend that cloning can make genuine mental issues for cloned kids. The concerns are identified with personality structuring, recognizable proof, sexual orientation character, singularity, absence of creativity and different issues connected with social passionate and cognitive advancement (Kass, 1997; Annas, 1998; Kass and Wilson, 1998; Pence, 1998b; Wills, 1998; Baird, 1999; Burley and Harris, 1999; Williamson, 1999; Andrews, 2000; Fung, 2000; Mcgee, 2000a,b; Gonnella and Hojat, 2001; Satava, 2002; The President's Council on Bioethics, 2002; Tannert, 2006). Moreover, the rivals of human cloning have likewise contended that individuals who have been cloned might not have the essential qualities for accurate autonomy from their forebears. Mcgee (2001), for instance, communicated questions that an individual who has been cloned can feel that her ancestor, who hereditary would be her monozygotic twin, may turn into a proper guardian.
Well, in absolutely hereditary terms, if a lady utilized this procedure to have an infant, the youngster, the little girl would really be the genetic sister of the mother. However I don't feel that the mother might treat the youngster as a sister. The social circumstance might make the mother treat the tyke as a girl ... we as of recently have confounded illustrations of legacy at this moment. On the off chance that an individual's father has an indistinguishable twin sibling, then that individual's uncle is additionally their hereditary father in absolutely hereditary terms. So we don't take a gander at things in simply hereditary terms. We take a gander at things regularly in social terms.
We have these confounded characters and new manifestations of family, however we don't deliberately make them all the time. In this example, we are making them and we are making them inside a private, market-driven industry. In terms of cloning, individuals are over underlining the genes the genes are constantly smothered of extent. The reason is on account of each day some place on the planet there are youngsters conceived who much the same as one guardian look and who grow up and act much the same as one guardian. A clone will be no not the same as kids who are now conceived today. It will virtually resemble one guardian and it will have a number of the same conduct inclinations as the one guardian. Be that as it may that recently happens, so no one is set got have the capacity to recognize a cloned youngster from a kid who happens to look and carry on like one guardian.
Cite This Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: