CRISPR Gene Editing: Ethics

The moral permissibility of genetically modifying embryos and allowing them to take to term is a complex and highly debated issue. Some argue that genetic modification of embryos can be a valuable tool for improving human health and well-being, and that it is therefore morally permissible to allow genetically modified embryos to take to term. Others, however, argue that genetic modification of embryos raises serious ethical concerns, and that it is therefore morally impermissible to allow genetically modified embryos to take to term.

Arguments for this practice are that, first of all, it has the potential to reduce the occurrence of genetic diseases and disorders. Second, it could lead to better quality of life for those with existing genetic issues (BBC, 2019). Another factor in justifying it is that it could lead to improved treatments and cures for a range of medical conditions. It is also argued that it could help reduce the burden of care and financial costs associated with treating genetic disorders. Finally, proponents of the practice suggest that it could help reduce the suffering of people and their families affected by genetic diseases.

However, there are also many arguments against the moral justification of the practice. For instance, one argument against is that it could lead to the creation of designer babies, where parents choose the traits of their children before they are born. Another argument against is that the long-term effects of modifying the human genome are unknown (Cyranoski & Ledford, 2018). Third, it could lead to an increased risk of unintended genetic mutations. It could also lead to a greater risk of discrimination based on genetic differences. Finally, the practice is not morally justifiable as it could lead to the unacceptably high cost of genetic modification, making it inaccessible to people who need it the most.

Whether or not I support gene edits would depend on the context. In general, I believe that gene edits should be used carefully, as there are potential risks associated with them. For example, gene edits could result in unexpected consequences, including unintended health risks or changes to the gene pool (Raposo, 2019). Additionally,...

…of things (Politi & Grinbaum, 2020). According to Aristotle, the actions of the scientists who created genetically edited embryos could potentially be considered morally justified if they were motivated by a desire to promote the natural flourishing and well-being of human beings, and if they were guided by the principles of reason and wisdom.

In conclusion, gene-editing embryos has created a moral quandary, raising the question of whether it is ethical or not. While Kantianism dictates that any activity that does not respect personal autonomy should be avoided, Aristotle takes the position that gene-editing embryos for medical benefit is ethically permissible and can even be encouraged. Lastly, Plato believed in an ideal blueprint for a perfect society where any method used to guarantee the best result was deemed ethically sound. This means that according to Plato's ethical system, gene-editing embryos could be seen as acceptable when done research responsibly with care for individual human life preserved. Ultimately, each school of ethical thought presents compelling arguments about the morality of gene-edited embryos; it is up to us as individuals to decide…