Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
5. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side.
Yes Side: He states that using these genetic enhancements will create a lack of
appreciation for life as a gift. He also believes that genetic enhancements will only
further separate the rich from the poor where the rich can afford the treatments and
the poor are left behind eventually creating a sub species.
No Side: He believes these genetic enhancements are the next step in in our
advancement in medicine such as penicillin and should be widely used and
accepted as such. He also believes that perfection can never be achieved anyway
so these genetic enhancements are not as terrible as they seem since the product
will never be perfection.
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can.
He uses the ethical argument to make his case without using actually facts to back
it up. Saying do we really want to live in a society where we genetically enhance
perfectly healthy kids. Also, asking to question our moral standing on the issue.
7. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.
He uses the world trade center attack as an example of how things never go
according to plan and further as a reason for genetic enhancement in humans even
though the events are completely unrelated.
8. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in
presenting his or her thesis? Why?
Although both authors presented their thesis very well I believe the No side present
their thesis most empirically. He used several quotes and others to back up his
ideas as well as used the fact these genetic enhancements still help people and
using it for purpose other than medical emergencies is just another effect of the
advancements. Another reason I believed the no side was better was due to the fact
that the yes side used morality and ethics as its reason against genetic
enhancement with no real facts to back up why it is unethical and why that means it
should be avoided.
9. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do
they have these biases?
Yes both sides showed some biases. Since the author of the yes side is a
philosopher he would more likely be looking at the morality and ethics of subjects as
well as seeing existence and life in the way of perfect as is or as a gift with in its self
that must be understood rather than changed. The author of the no side is a