Paul Lu
English AP
Introduction: In the last century, technology has given human beings a new level of control. We are now able to change plants and animals with our advancements in genetic engineering. Then there is the ability to use our medicine to help heal diseases in new ways using stem cells and cloning. Many of these advancements have faced controversy against many religious institutions across the world. This has caused many of these breakthroughs to stall because of moral and political issues.
Assignment: Read the following sources carefully. Then in an essay that synthesizes all eight sources for support. Then take a position that defends, qualifies, or challenges this question: With our advancements in science and technology, have human beings become an immoral species?
Source A (Silver)
Source B (Caplan (creation))
Source C (Caplan (dolly))
Source D (Pope)
Source E (Picture)
Source F (Galileo)
Source G (Stien)
Source H (Lockwood and Hope)
Paul Lu
English AP
May 17, 2007
Technology has given humans beings the power to control what was previously thought impossible. We are able to modify plants, animals, and other humans with our advancements in the field of medicine and technology. Conflicts have occurred because these different technologies have challenged many religious values. Although classical morality is threatened by these new advancements in technology, these changes in our society have not compromised our morals as a species but only made us more tolerant of this progress.
Conflicts between morality and science are not by any means a new event. A classic example of science causing controversy with immorality was Galileo and his 17th century theory that the Earth was not the center of the universe. The church sentenced Galileo to house-arrest for life because he defied the teachings of the bible. The church has declared: "The sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture; That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith" (Source F). This was a consequence of blind faith that overruled commonsense. Although it might seem that science clearly has defiled the moral teachings of the Bible, the church has recently given an apology for Galileo's punishment. If the religious community is showing they should not have reacted so harshly for punishing Galileo. Science eventually displayed that the literal translation of an ancient text is not the best explanation of the world. This changes a previously immoral act, contradicting the scriptures, into an accepted one. Galileo presented his findings in order to inform the world not to destroy the foundations of Christianity, and the church realized this and became more accepting of differing opinions.
While controversy over morals existed in the past they are no less prevalent today. Our advancements in technology have allowed us new forms of entertainment. The computer has given us many ways to enjoy games. Some include gambling, but this has many people petitioning for government regulations. In Cox and Forkum's "Federal Hold'em" It shows the Federal government banning online gambling. This was a way to maintain our society's morals actions while our technology grows at such a rapid pace. Although there are some who would abuse our freedom with technology, the government is there to maintain proper standards in conduct. The passing of the ban shows that the majority of people wants the ban in place and wants to be morally upright. This shows how people are willing to give up some frivolous activities to remain moral.
Evolution was also another theory that upset the church because it attacked the foundation of Christianity's Genesis. For decades creationists and evolutionists debated over which idea was correct. Evolutionists were looked upon as heretical people who were trying to break the religion apart, but recently the last Pope wanted Christians to follow a path that was previously unexpected. Pope John Paul II wanted evolution to be considered a "serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis" (Source D). With this declaration the threat of science eroding the moral foundation of so many people around the world has been stopped. The Pope also said that "Some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis" (Source D). The church growing more accepting of science has changed previously immoral beliefs into acceptable one for both the religious and non-religious. As a species we are growing more accepting of each other's beliefs and it is actually making us better for it.
While evolution was troubling to many in the religious community, another event caused widespread panic. The event that pushed the world of medicine into the battlefield of morality was successful cloning of the sheep Dolly. This caused a "storm of fear, confusion, misunderstanding, pandering and double-talk" (Source C). Proper cloning was originally thought too complicated for mammals, but Dolly disproved this idea. There were sudden uprisings of people who declared such science as immoral. The media ran with the story and "in the weeks following Dolly's announcement, mainstream media reports were full of irresponsible speculations by all sorts of experts and "authorities" on what Dolly's birth meant for you and me" (Source C). This is predictions of a dystopic future have not come to fruition even after ten years since Dolly. We do not have dictators with massive clone armies or government controlled populations with clones. The world has on the other hand received new beneficial technologies with the creation of Dolly. If our technology was actually causing our morality to decay, would there not be clones among us today? The world did not become drowned in chaos just because a lab cloned a sheep. This just shows humans have the morality to slow down when it comes to controversial technologies.
Sometimes a beneficial breakthrough can worry many people because of the negative implications it holds. The HPV vaccine is one such breakthrough. "The vaccine, known as Gardasil, protects against human papillomavirus (HPV), a ubiquitous sexually transmitted virus that causes genital warts and cervical cancer. In June, the Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil for women and girls ages 9 to 26, making it the first vaccine marketed specifically to prevent a cancer" (Source G). Even though the vaccine can prevent the carcinogenic virus from infecting a young girl, HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and that worries some parents. Some believe if they give the vaccine to their girls it means they are encouraging pre-marital sex, but the vaccine's purpose is to prevent a cancer not undermine the moral values of families. Families remain adamant about saving the vaccine until their daughters are married or at least adults. The disease causes cancer in "10,000 women in the United States each year and kills about 3,700, according to the American Cancer Society" (Source G). People are stuck between wanted to protect them from a cancerous virus or protecting their morality. The vaccine is useful because it is preventing the possibility of the disease from occurring and is trying to save lives that could be lost. The vaccine is not mandatory and allows parents to choose when to give the vaccine to their daughters when they believe it should be appropriate.
While HPV is a new development there are medical procedures today that happen regularly and are generally acceptable, but there are some negative points that can be brought up. Invitro fertilization has some asking: "In whose interests, however, are we acting?" (Source H). Many people believe society is controlling who should have the procedure done on them and thus trying to get the most successful child possible instead of helping all couples. In Hope and Lockwood states that doctors "might, wrongly, refuse to help a couple even when not helping them would not in fact benefit other couples". While some might believe society is trying to assert their own interests "as interests of the potential child", invitro fertilization is still a way for couples to get a child of their own (Source H). This procedure is grounded in the moral purpose of giving the chance to others not control the type of people born in the country. The government is not trying to force our society into a specific form by manipulating the population. If this was happening in the United States we would not have any free will, but we are able to make our own choices today and still lead independent lives outside of government control.
While some medical procedures such as invitro fertilization are commonplace in our society, there are some ideas that are blown out of proportion when one even mentions eugenics. In Dr. Lee Silver's interview with PBS he says that people who want children "treat their children as children". The perceived idea that genetics is causing the total of human kind become immoral fools has become false in more ways than one. The threat of egomaniacs is also diffused by Silver's explanation that "he's not going to get what he expected. He's not going to achieve immortality. He's just going to have a son" (Source A). The results of genetic engineering will not be the nightmarish ideas that came with horror movies. It will be much more down to earth since people's moralities are not decaying. If they were decayed because of our technology designer babies and human clones would be surrounding us today.
Genetics has another element that people do not expect. Humans have used primitive forms of genetic engineering for centuries. We created new species by the "systematic breeding of animals and plants" (Source B). Domesticated pets are the results of people using their power to create animals. Not only has this existed writer Arthur Caplan found out "no major religion is opposed to the creation of life forms as an act that defies god's will or places humanity in a role that is inappropriate" in his examination of many major religions (Source B). No major religion explicitly denounces or even disapproves of creating life not even Christianity. How can something go against the will a religion if there is no opposition in the major religious texts? Technically these acts are not considered immoral by any means. Caplan brings up another good point when he says, "if you create a life form that can cure disease or feed the world then you won't find many religious leaders objecting". This is an example of when people place their beliefs in the place of the religion.
This is a world where our mastery with science and technology is growing every moment. Claims that this technology is causing our morality to decay is non-sense. If it were true our world would be drowning in sins, but our society is pretty much the same as it always was. Some people forget that morality is a very subjective thing. It changes over time just as our culture does. It is impossible to force one view of morality on all the inhabitants of the world either. Most of the technology in the world is meant to improve human life and understanding of the world. No one intends on developing science in order to dismantle the morality that people have.
Works Cited
Caplan, Arthur. "10 Years After Dolly: Clones, Crooks, and Crazies." Bioethics.Net. 22 Feb. 2007.
Caplan, Arthur. "Should Scientists Create New Life?" Bioethics.Net. 21 Nov. 2002.
Finocchiaro, Maurice, trans. "Texts From the Galileo Affair: a Documentary History." 22 June 1616. West Chester University.
Forkum, Allen, and John Cox. "Federal Hold'Em." Cox and Forkum. 24 Oct. 2006.
Hope, Tony, Gill Lockwood, and Michael Lockwood. "Should Older Women Be Offered in Vitro Fertilization." 18 Jan. 1995.
Pope John Paul II. "Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: on Evolution." 22 Oct. 1996. The Vatican.
Silver, Lee. "Human Cloning: How Close is It?" PBS.
Stien, Rob. "Vaccine for Girls Raises Thorny Issues." Washington Post. 7 Nov. 2006.