Comment on Choose wisely!
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 6 days agoWe’re not just talking about autism here though. We’re talking about hereditary diseases, maybe a bad back, extreme allergies, etc. Their point is that if we had the technology to prevent our future child from carrying all sorts of genetic burdens (exposure to cancer, compromised immune system, terrible eyesight…) wouldn’t it be immoral to not use that technology?
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 days ago
We’re not, no. Sexual preference is genetic.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I’m not saying that this kind of thing cannot be used for bad purposes. I’m asking the philosophical question of where our moral obligation to do everything we can to give our children the best possible life begins.
Should we let them be born “as is”, and then have a moral obligation to do everything we can to make the best of whatever genetic baggage they have, or should we do whatever is in our power even before they’re born to give them a better shot at a good life?
Explosives have caused enormous amounts of death, but also allowed enormous amounts of people to live in safer, more affordable houses, and have been critical for mineral extraction that essentially makes modern society possible, as well as modern transportation infrastructure. Explosives, like most technology, aren’t an inherently “evil” thing, even though they’re used for bad purposes.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 days ago
And I’m saying it will be.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 4 days ago
But that doesn’t answer the question of whether we are morally obliged to use it for good purposes when possible. It’s just a different point entirely.