Ethics are a set of moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior. My personal definition of ethics follows most lineally along the basics of the categorical imperative. This view of ethics focuses on the intentions behind an action. I find myself supporting this theory in the way it suggests that a person with pure intentions and a good will is good in themselves. This way of thinking promotes the idea that if there is heart and good intentions behind an action, it is a good action regardless of the outcome. This ideology believes there may be a person of good will whose actions may produce something negative. This unfortunate accident may come from ignorance or forces out of one’s control, which does not necessarily mean they are a bad person, but more likely a good person who simply made a mistake. we cannot truly ever tell anyone’s intensions but our own, which makes it troublesome to decipher between people who have a good will and those who do not. this intangible idea of deciding the good in an action by the intention of the actor leads people to the other train of thought, utilitarianism. This idealism believes that the good of an action is in the action itself and what it produces. I do believe that every action has value, I do think where an action comes from is important. Being honest because your moral self wants to be is purer than being honest so people will think you are honest, or because we are socially inclined to be honest. In my life, i like to live along the beliefs of the categorical imperative for I try to be a good person for the sake of being a good person. I believe the reason behind why I do what I do matters, and that how I get there should be just as important as the fact that I make it. Over my high school career, I have found it easier when trying to not judge people by their actions. I never know where someone is coming from or the true intentions for their actions, and I should never give them a title that I don’t know if they deserve. Through this way of thought I have become a large fan of the assume innocent until proven guilty cliché. When someone’s actions may bring a negative outcome, I try and assume that the intentions were there, and something simply fell out of line along the execution.
My topic of ethics I would like to discuss is embryo modification. The basic idea of this practice is to genetically modify an embryo while growing in the mother’s womb, changing the natural dna and therefore life of the to-be baby. This is an idea I would like to support. Through genetic modification we could put an end to debilitating diseases, allow every child to be born with the ideal genetics for survival, and create a world where everyone’s biological quality of life is at the maximum. Unfortunately, this would only work in the ideal world where there is no corruption, greed, or financial power structure. With the presence of corruption and greed this biological miracle can be easily turned into a weapon of self interest. Couples whose child would be born with all the fundamental genetics to survive could try and manipulate their embryo for non-crucial and trivial reasons such as to meet typical beauty standards, or improve athletic growth, ect. These reasons are not void for change, and succumbing to them could create a world lacking diversity. This procedure would also cost a fair amount of money. It would be a problem for those who are not economically privileged, for their children may be born into a world where they have little to no quality of life, when others can have children who contain a biological jackpot of desired genetics. The potential good that could come from this project is revolutionary and I would like to believe that all variables would line up to see that nobody would have to suffer with degenerative diseases. Unfortunately, there are so many ways that this project could go wrong that I believe it would be irresponsible to release this science to world of corruption we currently live in. maybe one day with equal opportunity we could attempt this project, but even then, there would have to be strict restrictions on what should be changed. This would require someone to decide if a genetic abnormality was severe enough to change, which I don’t think anyone has the right to do. I am fascinated by this topic and would like to support it, but I am currently not able to put my faith in society for my own scientific inquiries if it could mean destruction.