The philosophical study of ethics goes back much further than 20th and 21st century medical issues but could still be applied to the ethical issues surrounding genetic engineering. Utilitarianism looks at the benefits and risks associated with ethics. Whereas Kant’s theory takes a very different approach and deals in absolute rules. Rather than asking what the benefits of say embryonic stem cell research might be he would ask whether there is anything in principle wrong with such research. Pre implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) also known as embryo screening allows couples at risk of transmitting a genetic disease to ensure their future children are unaffected by the disease without going through the process of parental diagnosis (i.e., testing of foetal tissue for the presence of diseased genes) and being
The third is the formula of the kingdom of ends. When applying Kantian ethics to the use of embryos in research all consequences should not be considered as deontological ethics only focus of intentions and actions and therefore all potential gains to medical development cannot be considered, only the action of testing on and destroying embryos. Emotion should also be excluded and therefore especially with IVF where couples can’t have children, the emotions linked with that situation cannot be considered. The formula of an end in itself can also be applied to embryo research as it can be argued that the embryo is being used as a means to an end. However this would only apply if the embryo is regarded as a rational moral agent but the status of the embryo is unclear.
Why are some people highly intelligent and others appear to lack common sense? For years psychologists have been debating if your genetics or your surroundings are more important to determine personalities ( ). Some psychologists strongly believe that genetics have fairly little to do with peoples personalities but rather it is our surroundings, culture, and traditions that shape who we are. According to Saul McLeod, author of "Nature Nurture in Psychology" from Simply Psychology, "At the other end of the spectrum are the environmentalists – also known as empiricists (not to be confused with the other empirical / scientific approach). Their basic assumption is that at birth the human mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and that this is gradually “filled” as a result of experience."
Rulers Not According to Hobbes: Government Must Include to Protect the People’s Natural Rights Thomas Hobbes and his “Leviathan” pays tribute into how a society must be governed and ruled under absolutism, by one person that oversees all decisions and power. He states that all men are born into society without rights because they hold no reason and will retain and resort to their primitive behavior. In this paper I will state that it is not true because naturally men are born to reason by creating just laws and capable of creating society that will protect the rights of the people. Hobbes’ strong view that in order to have peace and stability in societal order is to require that individuals must give up their rights and allow one ruler of a sovereign state to make all the decisions. This, in his view, helps maintain a governing body of authority that will provide peace and security.
Mayr (2000) begins by stating that many notions of biology in the last 150 years have been in opposition to popular belief. Those beliefs have ultimately been modified due almost entirely to the influential theories of Charles Darwin. Darwin’s first key influence, he claims, is the concept of evolution itself. At the time this notion was proposed, the majority of leading scientists and philosophers believed that the world as it existed now was the creation God, not the result of gradual natural forces. He goes on to say that branching evolution, a notion which suggests common decent, was also an alien concept at the time of proposition, as was the notion that evolution must be a gradual process with its fundamental mechanism being natural selection (Mayr, 2000).
Evolution as fact and theory summary In Stephen Jay Gould’s “Evolution as Fact and Theory” Gould argues that evolution is both a theory and a fact. Clearly distinguishing fact from theory, he argues that these terms have been misused by creationists in order to support their theories. Furthermore, Stephen Gould bases his belief in evolution on three arguments, the observable evidence of fossils, the imperfection of nature which clearly reveals evolution, and the transitions of previous species over time. Gould states that in American vernacular, theory means a fact that is not perfect. He also states that facts are the data that the world has gathered; while theories are organized ideas that attempt to describe and interpret facts.
Many people also believe that animals are inferior to humans and very different from them, hence results from animals cannot be applied to humans. Those in favor of animal testing argue that experiments on animals are necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. Claude Bernard, known as the father of physiology, stated that “experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree”. Bernard established animal experimentation as part of the standard scientific method.
Many people in the 1800s were proud Christian believers and believed God created humans. Once his book, “The Origin of Species”, was published a great controversy shook the world because due to Darwin’s thinking, Christianity saw it that he believed there was no more need for God as a creator. One of the ways in which Victorian sensibilities was tested by Darwin’ theories could be his believed relation between man and apes. He explains that apes are our ancestors and that we evolved from them. This created a tremendous amount of dispute since the Christian Church and the Victorians believed Charles and his theory were making it seem like humanity was not made in the image of God, but instead referring us to animals.
So this correlates with humans having a very aggressive violent past dealing with defending territories, sexual selection, and natural selection. On the other hand, biological anthropologist, Robert Sussman “rejects the theory that human aggression is an inherited propensity, arguing instead that violence is a product of culture and upbringing” (Sussman, 15-16). Humans are a much more established than any other species, we learn from what we surround ourselves with. Therefore, humans are not inherently violent. Human aggression is all based off of our great ape ancestors.