Sunny Davis
Short form: Issue 12
Article: The Case Against Perfection
Author: Michael J. Sandel
Major Thesis (yes side): The author believes that using genetic technology to enhance performance,
design children, and perfect human nature is a flawed attempt at human mastery, and banishes the
appreciation of life as a gift. He argues that there is a moral problem with genetic enhancement and
artificial selection.
Three Facts Presented:
1.
Researchers have developed a synthetic gene that, when injected into the muscle cells of mice,
prevents and even reverses natural muscle deterioration
2. In the mid-1990s scientists managed to manipulate a memory-linked gene in fruit flies, creating
flies with photographic memories.
3. Since the 1980s human growth hormone has been approved for children with a hormone
deficiency that makes them much shorter than average. But the treatment also increases the
height of healthy children.
Three Opinions Given:
1.
The widespread use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in professional sports
suggests that many athletes will be eager to avail themselves of genetic enhancement.
2. Cognitive enhancement could create two classes of human beings; those with access to
enhancement technologies, and those who must make do with their natural capacities.
3. I do not think the main problem with enhancement and genetic engineering is that they
undermine effort and erode human agency. The deeper danger is that they represent a kind of
hyperagency- a Promethean aspiration to remake nature, including human nature.
Identify in your own words the propaganda techniques used, if any:
Arguments on a position that are based in totality on “morality” are hard for me to digest.
Morality is subjective and emotionally/spiritually driven. For that reason, I believe we should not be
making policy based on whether or not something is moral. However, this argument appeals greatly to
a lot of people and will be accepted by many. The author implies heavily several times that it is not up
to humans to interfere with life and that another force is in charge. Thus, if you manipulate genes you
are interfering with a higher order (which is a provocative piece of information for a multitude of people
with any kind of spiritual belief). This is a propaganda technique because attempts to convince people
that genetic enhancement is bad without objective evidence.
What cause/effect relationship were stated or implied by the author:
He says, “that promise of mastery is flawed. It threatens to banish our appreciation of life as a
gift, and to leave us with nothing to affirm or behold outside our own will.” Basically he thinks it is
immoral and foolish to think that human will trump every other force.
Another cause/effect he points out is that cognitive enhancement could be a problem because it
has the potential of creating two classes: those with access to enhancement technologies, and those
who must make do with their natural capacities.
Were any of these cause/effect statements faulty?
The first one is faulty because it is pure speculation. The second one has more merit, but needs a bit
more evidence.
Other logical errors:
a- Distortion of information: none.
b- Faulty analogy: none.
c- Oversimplification: He assumes that life becomes less precious when humans can intervene. Pg
225
d- Stereotyping: none
e- Faulty generalization: With genetic enhancement, parents would be more ambitious and get
carried away with seeking perfection. Pg 226
Authors credentials and credibility:
The author is a political philosopher who wrote this piece for the Atlantic Monthly in April of
2004. He seems credible, used enough facts, and even his moral arguments and speculation were
logically sound.
How does this material apply to the class:
We have been learning about genetics and how a bunch of cells becomes a person when genetic
material is passed from parent to offspring. We have also learned that genetic enhancement is
continually making strides in many different areas, but is also extremely controversial. It is good to be
exposed to the arguments of both sides because this will become an every bigger question of whether
or not it should be allowed facing my generation.
Sunny Davis
Short form: Issue 12
Article: A Man is a Man is a Man
Author: Howard Trachtman
Thesis: (no side) The author accepts enhancement as a new way of expressing a natural desire to
improve health and well-being.
Two facts presented:
1. In the 1970s immunization practices and administration of antibiotics became standard.
2. A survey of the history of public health interventions indicates that people are reluctant to take
words of doctors on faith.
Four pinions given:
1.
Enhancement doesn’t create winners and losers. Wanting to be better is a hard wired trait that
humans are already engaged in. There will always be some that succeed more than others.
2. The author argues against the need to find the distinction between treatment which is justified
and permissible versus mere enhancement which should be constrained.
3. (See opinion#2) The author argues that it is wrong to place complaints in acceptable and
unacceptable categories. For example, is erectile dysfunction an ailment like salmonella
enteritis or just a failure to perform?
4. Although each advance reported in the press is greeted by the public with great fanfare and
anticipation, in reality many treatments are rejected by large segments of the population.
Propaganda used:
I couldn’t find any.
What cause/effect relationships were stated or implied by the author:
If we put limits on treatments (i.e. whether a particular person’s failure to concentrate is a sign of
disease worthy of treatment or indicates a lazy student who is not willing to work hard enough in
school.), then we give doctors free range to administer treatment based on their own perception on the
intentions of the patient. He believes it’s not the doctor’s place to decide.
Was this cause/effect statement faulty:
No, it is a valid point to consider that if someone wants some sort of enhancement for any
reason they are subject to the doctors opinion of whether or not they should receive treatment.
Logical Errors:
a- Distortion of information: Enhancement is a new term that is in vogue to describe what doctors
have been doing since time immemorial, namely working to improve the lot of the patients they
care for. (This statement downplays the word enhancement).
b- Faulty analogy: none
c- none
d- none
e- Faulty Generalization: Each medical advance from Xrays to imatinib has always been heralded as
the advent of the new millennium only to be replaced by new problems. (This implies people
shouldn’t worry because genetic enhancements won’t become the go to fix it source for
everyone which may or may not be true.)
Author’s credibility and credentials:
The author has many good points and should know what he is talking about from a medical
standpoint because he is a physician. In that regard he is more credible than the other author.
How does this material fit what I have learned in class:
This material is more from a medical standpoint and explains the pros of genetic enhancement
which I have learned from class have aided in many different ailments. It is interesting to learn how
certain realities about how our unsatisfactory genetic traits can be manipulated by science.
Sunny Davis
Long Form
Author and major thesis of Yes side: Michael J. Sandel
The author believes that using genetic technology to enhance performance, design children, and perfect
human nature is a flawed attempt at human mastery, and banishes the appreciation of life as a gift. He
argues that there is a moral problem with genetic enhancement and artificial selection.
Author and major thesis of No side: Howard Trachtman
The author accepts enhancement as a new way of expressing a natural desire to improve health and
well-being.
What fallacies of question-framing are made by the authors of the text:
Yes side: oversimplification, faulty generalization
No side: distortion of information, faulty generalization
Two facts from each side:
YES
1.
Researchers have developed a synthetic gene that, when injected into the muscle cells of mice,
prevents and even reverses natural muscle deterioration
2.
In the mid-1990s scientists managed to manipulate a memory-linked gene in fruit flies, creating
flies with photographic memories.
NO
1.
In the 1970s immunization practices and administration of antibiotics became standard.
2.
A survey of the history of public health interventions indicates that people are reluctant to take
words of doctors on faith.
Two opinions from each side:
YES
1.
The widespread use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in professional sports
suggests that many athletes will be eager to avail themselves of genetic enhancement.
2.
Cognitive enhancement could create two classes of human beings; those with access to
enhancement technologies, and those who must make do with their natural capacities.
NO
1.
Enhancement doesn’t create winners and losers. Wanting to be better is a hard wired trait that
humans are already engaged in. There will always be some that succeed more than others.
2.
Although each advance reported in the press is greeted by the public with great fanfare and
anticipation, in reality many treatments are rejected by large segments of the population.
Fallacies on the Yes side:
He assumes that life becomes less precious when humans can intervene. Pg 225
With genetic enhancement, parents would be more ambitious and get carried away with seeking
perfection. Pg 226
Fallacies on the No side:
Enhancement is a new term that is in vogue to describe what doctors have been doing since time
immemorial, namely working to improve the lot of the patients they care for. (This statement
downplays the word enhancement).
Each medical advance from Xrays to imatinib has always been heralded as the advent of the new
millennium only to be replaced by new problems. This implies that people shouldn’t worry because
genetic enhancements won’t become the go to fix it source for everyone which may or may not be true)
Which author was the most empirical:
I thought the “no” author was more empirical and made arguments based on objective information and
simple, logical conclusions. I thought both authors did a good job and had plenty of valid and
compelling things to say.
Are the authors biased?
I didn’t find any evidence from the text that the authors are outright biased, but I’m sure their careers
do influence their beliefs. The “yes” author was a political scientist which I’m sure made him look at the
issue from a political standpoint whereas the other author was a physician who has a greater
perspective on the good of genetic enhancements medically.
Which side do I agree with:
As stated before, I don’t accept arguments based on morality so I have to say the “no” side was most
compelling. I believe people should be able to choose how they want to live their lives and any claims
about the dangers of genetic enhancements are greatly exacerbated.