Ruse’s Argument
The primary argument of Michael Ruse regarding genetic engineering is that it is very possible to proceed with the scientific method of biological entity without harming the spiritual aspect of what most religions, specifically with Christianity teach about the natural tendency of existence. His main argument is that it is possible to reconcile religion with Evolutionary Theory (Wikipedia, 2007).
The stigma of creating a world of regret and blasphemy is no longer a valid reason why biological nature should be abandoned whereas it cold significantly harnessed to lead to the development of the human population. This caused some high criticisms over ethics and religious groups who were able to consider the argument of Ruse to be a serious matter.
In comparison with Glover and the CRG’s view, the main aspect that differentiate them from Michael Ruse’s argument is the fact that genetic engineering should only be used restrictively if it is to be used for genetic therapy which they think as morally right whereas it would be morally wrong if the process is to select only the trait to be modified without the consideration for the greater net welfare of the organism (Umass, 2005). This is the same principle that makes the stand of the Council for Responsible Genetics.
They insist that there should be an agreement on the proper code of responsibility when dealing with the manipulation of the genes of any organisms. Such act will definitely minimize the possible drawbacks of taking the power to change nature. This will ensure that the primary goal of genetic manipulation is to address the need to make it beneficial for the betterment of mankind.
References:
- Wikipedia. 2007. Michael Ruse. Wikepedia-The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved May 9, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruse.
- Umass. 2005. Glover: Objection on Genetic Engineering. Umass Office of Information technologies. Retrieved May 9, 2007.
Peter Singer-Bernard Rollin
There is a good comparison between Peter Singer’s approach to the ethical values for animals and Bernard Rollin’s perception on how to take care of the human’s appeal to animals. On the part of peter singer, he intends to provide a clear view of treating animals as somewhat equal to the dignity of the humans. He lobbied for the special treatment on other organisms to be treated also as humans who have rights and privileges of living a peaceful and safe life. He has started the animal liberation movement which dramatically intends to free the animals from the intention of humans to use them for their commodities.
On the other hand, Bernard Rollin plays an important role in signifying that science is never actually separated form ethics. In fact, science is full of ethical values. When it comes to animal sciences and suffering, he notes, there is an implied value-based ethical decision made whenever an animal’s suffering or welfare is considered subservient to science or industry (The Pew, 2004). Emotivism is used in the argument of Singer while Rollin’s is implying Cultural Relativism.
In searching for the better argument, the ethics provide by the Peter Singer is much more adhered to the true notion of ethics. His intention to set free the animals from human commercial use though genetics is directly capturing the essence of letting them live how nature intended them to survive. On the part of Rollin’s arguments, it can’t be denied that he also has a good approach in setting a standard notion about ethics and science. However, he missed the general point of protecting the animals but rather concentrates on the general perspective of influencing the people to lay down the fundamentals of ethical values.
References:
- The Pew. 2004. Bernard Rollin: Of Animal Science and Ethics. The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Retrieved May 9, 2007.
- O’Rourke, Kevin. 1986. Various Ethical Systems. Retrieved May 9, 2007 from .
