Summary
Sandel is against
genetic engineering because it weakens humanity, responsibility and solidarity
which are human’s moral characteristics. He notes four genetic engineering types
which are muscle enhancement, memory enhancement, prescription of growth hormone,
and gender selection. These genetic engineering types may achieve to be
perfect, but it has problem which is human’ responsibility will expand by
choosing traits and also, dificience of appreciation for talents as gifts. Therefore,
he thinks genetic engineering is undesirable due to desire for the will of
acquisition of over gift and to become “the masters of our nature” is mistake
because it lacks thanks for “life as a gift.” Also, he is worry about a loss solidarity
by unawareness of “the contingency of our talents.” To sum up, he is opposed to
genetic engineering.
Reaction
I agree with
Sandel’s opinion because genetic engineering seems to me out of moral especially
human cloning. I think genetic engineering has risk and if it fails, it will be
an irreparable mistake. However, in the future, genetic engineering may become
more common. Actually, in Japan, PDG is getting common. To be honest, I am
interested in PGD as a woman. I do not want to have a child who has serious
disease. I know this idea is selfish, but if I find my child’s serious defect,
I will have an abortion. Thus, this idea may have some connection to genetic
engineering because I hope kind of perfect body for my child. Whereas, I am for
his idea which is to consider life as a gift. Therefore, I think it is needed
not to exceed genetic engineering over human’s moral.
His article is
persuasive because he refers to four main causing examples for genetic
engineering. He explains from both general ideas and expert’s ideas by quoting
from old ideas and recent ideas. His article was difficult for me, but he uses
his main idea again and again such as life as a gift, so it is good way to
strengthen. Also, he uses “we”, “our”, so it is good for persuading readers.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿