Difference between revisions of "Team:SDU-Denmark/Tour63"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
<h1>Ethics</h1> | <h1>Ethics</h1> | ||
| − | <p | + | <p> |
When working in the field of synthetic biology one must have in mind that especially this field of science has many opponents. Here are some of the most common arguments against evolving genetically modified organisms (GMO), which is the main discipline in synthetic biology. -We must not play God, -it is not natural and -we cannot foresee the consequences. Lets take a closer look and try to find out whether or not they have any substantial weight. I will play this out as a dialectic dialog. Dialectic is the philosophical discipline where understanding and agreement comes through dialogue, not through analyzing syntax, semantics or theoretical systems. | When working in the field of synthetic biology one must have in mind that especially this field of science has many opponents. Here are some of the most common arguments against evolving genetically modified organisms (GMO), which is the main discipline in synthetic biology. -We must not play God, -it is not natural and -we cannot foresee the consequences. Lets take a closer look and try to find out whether or not they have any substantial weight. I will play this out as a dialectic dialog. Dialectic is the philosophical discipline where understanding and agreement comes through dialogue, not through analyzing syntax, semantics or theoretical systems. | ||
The father of dialectics is Socrates. | The father of dialectics is Socrates. | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
| − | < | + | <h4 style="border-bottom:none;">Why not ignore any arguments?</h4> |
<p> | <p> | ||
Revision as of 13:45, 4 September 2015
Ethics
When working in the field of synthetic biology one must have in mind that especially this field of science has many opponents. Here are some of the most common arguments against evolving genetically modified organisms (GMO), which is the main discipline in synthetic biology. -We must not play God, -it is not natural and -we cannot foresee the consequences. Lets take a closer look and try to find out whether or not they have any substantial weight. I will play this out as a dialectic dialog. Dialectic is the philosophical discipline where understanding and agreement comes through dialogue, not through analyzing syntax, semantics or theoretical systems. The father of dialectics is Socrates.
Why not ignore any arguments?
When people use the “God” argument, the biggest mistake is to wright it of as medieval and out of touch with the modern world. If one is interested in being taken serious one must also take all others serious. In a proper debate, which involves solving ethical issues, every single argument made by capable persons who are to be influenced by the outcome of the decision, must be taken serious. You will find this ethical approach in Jürgen Habermas´ discourse ethics.
1. Argument-we must not play God
Two friends meet at a coffee shop.
A: “So what are you doing these days?”
B: “I am involved in an international competition called iGEM”
A: “Really. Wow. What is it?”
B: “Well, we will try to make a GMO that certain problems.”
A: “GMO!?. I don’t like the sound of that. I don’t think that’s none of our business playing God”
B: “Playing God? How do you mean?”´
A: “You are making organisms that God didn’t intend. God is the only creator.”
B: “Well. Do we agree that God created man in his picture?”
A: “Yes”
B: “So God created man precisely as man should be?”
A: “Yes”
B: “Do you believe that the almighty God gave man two arms, two legs and two eyes without the intention that man should use these in everyway possible?”
A: “Of course not. God made our bodies the way they are so that we can run, built and scout for food or danger”
B: “I agree. Now imagine this. A man suddenly finds himself stuck in a tree. A hungry bear with cups is circling beneath. From my perspective God here has two options. Letting the man die or in some way save him. Do you agree?”
A: “Yes”
B: “And do we agree that whatever happens, it is Gods will?”
A: “We most certainly do”
B: “So if the man in the tree figures a way to produce a spear like object from a branch and kills the bear it is Gods will?”
A: “Very much so”
B: “So we agree that every single happening on the face of earth is the will of God?.”
A: “I am certain of this”
B: “Then you must also see that when you say that I am doing wrong when I produce a GMO, you are actually saying that Gods will is illegitimate. You are in fact saying that God acts wrongfully. Do we agree on this?”
A: “I guess so”.
B: “So my friend. Can you see that your argument is faulted?”
A: “Yes”
2. Argument- it is Unnatural
B“Why do you oppose the making making Gmo`s
“It is unnatural”
“In what way do you mean?”
“I mean it is unnatural because we make stuff in a laboratory that nature cannot”
“So because GMO`s are not created by evolution but human interference you oppose it?”
“Yes I do”
“Do you think that humans can exist without interfering with nature?”
“No. But there is a difference between doing what is needed to survive and what is possible”
“So what is needed for man to survive is okay, but the progress of science due to curiosity is not?”
“Yes, exactly”
“Then please tell me. Are we to revoke penicillin and lifesaving medication?”
“Of course not.”
“Are we to de-evolve back to the stone ages?”
“Don’t be foolish”
“Then what do you mean?”
“There is just something that feels wrong when it comes to GMO”
“Your feelings are highly justified, but they cannot count as an argument can they?”
“No”
“So you admit that arguing against GMO with the statement that it is unnatural is faulted?”
“Yes”
3. Argument- we cannot foresee the consequences
“In what way do you oppose to GMO`s?”
“We don’t have a clue about the consequences”
“You are right. We don’t. But if we were to avoid actions where the consequences is unknown then there is very little left for us to do”
“What do you mean?”
“A consequence is in causal relation to an action right?”
“Right”
“We define a consequence as something that happens as a result of an action, and that we can trace the consequence back to the action. Do we agree?”
“We do”
“But does this mean that the only consequences that exists are the ones that we experience? It seems to me that this approach is blocked by commonsense. Imagining that the existence consequences of my actions are limited to my conscience. This implies that if I was to drop a bucket of stones from a rooftop and it was to hit and kill a person, then it wouldn’t happen if I were never confronted with it. This is absurd don’t you think?”
“Indeed”
“So the reality and variety of the consequences of my actions doesn’t depend on me experiencing it, right?”
“Right”
“Then you must agree that it is quite possible that there is a unfathomable amount of consequences of even the most anonymous action. Yes?”
“It is possible yes”
“And this thesis, that we both agree on, is of course regarding all actions right?”
“Right”
“The only consequence we can affirm, as being the direct result of an action are the one with an apparently immediate beginning and end, both spatial and temporal. And this leads back to my argument that if we were to do only the things of which we know the consequences it will leave us paralyzed. Agree?”
“Yes”
“And doesn’t also mean that not knowing the consequences doesn’t mean that a certain action should not be carried out?”
“That makes sense”
“Therefor my friend. It is only human not to know all the consequences of ones actions, but it is not an argument against GMO.”