Utilitarianism + Genetic Engineering

A method for determining moral right and wrong actions in

terms of the usefulness / utility

BAD = produces pain

GOOD = produces pleasure
Maximise pleasure
Minimise pain

Therefore the end result of an action can justify the action

itself, even if the action contravened usual moral rules.

3 types of Utilitrainsim
Act Utilitarianism
Each individual decision should be taken on the merits of each
individual case

Rule Utilitarianism
Societies moral rules should have more authoritiy than act
utilitarianism allows, as societies moral rules are known from
experience to promote the overall happiness of society.
Societies rules should have authority over the actions of
individuals.
The rules of society should be generally followed, although are
not absolute- in some cases it can be disobeyed in a situation
where they dont promote the greatest happiness for the
greatest number anymore.
Preference Utilitarianism
preference utilitarianism promotes actions that fulfill human preferences.
Argues that there is more diverse range of goods than simply pain and
pleasure e.g. good of friendship/ intellectual achievement, artistic beauty
ect.

An action is good if it makes progress towards fulfilling their preference.

Genetic Engineering and Utilitarianism

To apply U. to Genetic Engineering you have to know the
consequences of your actions.
Problem we cant predict the consequences of our actions.
But probable that if a few embryos are harmed now the later
lives it will save are likely to outweigh these initial costs.
Bentham

A consequentialist

Bethanm included the pleasure and pain of all sentient beings

in his calculations
Hedonic Calculus
Intensity
How intense is the pleasure or pain?
Duration
How long does the pleasure of pain last?
Certainty
What is the probability that the pleasure or pain will
occur?
Propinquity (nearness or remoteness)
How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain?
Fecundity
What is the probability that the pleasure will lead to
other pleasures?
Purity
What is the probability that the pain will lead to other
pains?
Extent
How many persons are affected by the pleasure?

Do early embryos feel pain? The general consensus is no they

dont in which case HC doesnt apply.

But can be applied to the benefits which might come from

genetic engineering.
Yet at this stage no cure has actually been achieved through
using embryonic stem cell research

Mill
-

He wants the decision-maker to treat all those affected by

decision equally.
Higher and Lower pleasures
Betham- there is differences in quantity between pleasures
Mill argues that there are also differences in quality.
Higher = mind
Lower= swine pleasures/ e.g. sex/food/bodily
pleasures

Singer
- Peter Singer on Embryos
Opponents of research on human embryos usually start and
finish their argument with the claim that the human embryo
is, from the moment of conception, a living, innocent human
being. But the morality of using a being for research should
depend on what the being is like, not on the species to which
it belongs.
Other things being equal, there is less reason for objecting to
the use of an early human embryo, a being that has no brain,
no consciousness and no preferences of any kind, than there
is for objecting to research on rats, who are sentient beings
capable of preferring not to be in situations that are painful or
frightening to them
Research on embryos should not be permitted if there is any
possibility that the embryo is capable of suffering - but no one
would argue that an embryo consisting of 64 cells could be
capable of suffering. A developed brain and nervous system is
a prerequisite for a capacity to suffer. It is sheer species-bias
that makes us permit all kinds of trivial uses to be made of
sentient non-humans and then prevent far more significant
research from being carried out because it requires cells from
early, non-sentient human embryos.

Kant and Genetic Engineering

KEY TO IT DOESNT LOOK AT THE CONSEQUENCES
- so wouldnt look at the benefits which may come from genetic
engineering in the decision-making process. Act out of duty.
- Duty for dutys sake

Rejects consequentialist ethics

Says humans have REASON and than their reason not their
instinct, desire/emotion should guide their actions.

Reason provides two imperatives (which means rules) that need to

be followed
categorically i.e. The Categoical Imperatives
The Categorical Imperatives
1. The Formula of Universal Law
Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time
will that it should become universal law.
Universal maxims
2. The Formula of the End in itself
Act so as to treat humanity never only as a means but always
also as an end.

-if you treat something as a means to an end and only as a

means to an end, you treat it has having no value that is
independent of how it meets my needs/desires.
If you treat it as an End therefore is to imply that it has a value
independently of me and therefore you should places
restrictions on how you treat it.

Living in a Kindom of Ends- a world where people treat everone as

ends not merely as means.

Rule based therefore it is deontological system.

-

Kant only explicitly relates the Formula of Ends to humans

But it does have the capacity to be applied more broadly

Problems
X Main issue is whether an Embryo counts as a person. IF it does
then you would definitely be using it as an means to an end.
Also believed in informed consent- the Embryo isnt consenting if
your using it in embryo research.

X can you univesralise maxims to do with genetic engineering ?

X Kant asks us to ignore compassion/ benevolence ect. As it

prevents us from using the Categorical Imperatives properly.
How would this factor in to Genetic engineering? (maybe apply
case studies here)

Therapeutic Cloning is more problematic for Kantians, as this involves creating a

cloned embryo. The embryo is never intended to grow into a baby, and would not
be considered a Kantian person. However, Kant did not consider children to be
persons in the fullest sense, as they do not yet have a developed ability to
reason, but he still said they need to be protected as potential

persons.

Kantianswouldarguethatmanyformsofgeneticengineeringarenotethicallyjustifiable.Some
Kantianswouldbeagainstanyprocessesthatinvolveexperimentationonordestructionofhuman
embryos.Theseconcernscouldstretchtotheuseofhumangenesincreatingpharmaceuticalsin
animals,ortheinsertionofhumangeneticmaterialintocrops.Utilitarianswoulddisagreewiththis
approach,asitfailstotakeintoaccountthepositivebenefitsofgeneticmodification.Whilstitseems
righttoconsiderthebenefitsofgeneticmodification,itdoesntseemthatUtilitariansarerightto
suggestitisonlytheoutcomethatmatterstoworkoutwhatisethicallyjustifiedwedoneedtothink
abouttheacttoo.
SomeKantiansdisagreeaboutthestatusoftheembryo,andwouldlimittheirconcernstocaseswhere
embryosareimplantedandallowedtogrow,suchasreproductiveclonesorsavioursiblingscreated
usingPGD.ThisapproachismoreinlinewiththelegalpositionintheUK,andwithpublicopinion,
whichlargelyholdsthatreproductivecloningisnotethicallyjustifiable.ThefilmMySistersKeeper
highlightedconcernsabouttherightsofasavioursibling.Thisfilmsuggestedthat,eventhough
creatingsavioursiblingsmightbeforthegreatergood,theymaystillgoagainstwhatisjustorright.
Theremaybeadifferencebetweenwhatismostbeneficialandwhatisethicallyjustifiable,anda
Utilitarianapproachmaynotbeappropriatewithissuesconcerninghumanrights.
Aswellastheprocessesofgeneticengineering,Kantianswouldfocusontheimplicationsofsuch
processes.Forexample,evenifpreventinggeneticdisordersusingPGDwasnotusinghumanity
merelyasameanstoanend,itmightleadtodiscrimination,ashumanswiththosedisordersmaybe
seenashavingalowerstatus(ifitsokaytousePGDtogetridofembryoswiththatcondition,what
doesthatsayaboutpeoplewiththatcondition?).Utilitarianswouldalsobeconcernedwith
discrimination,asitcouldmeanbadconsequencesforpeople.Forexample,PGDisusedtoprevent
Downssyndromepregnancies,andwithfewerchildrenwithDownssyndrome,itishardertogeta
childwithDownsintoamainstreamschool;intheUK,apersonwithDownssyndromecannotgeta
heartandlungtransplantsimplybecauseoftheirconditionetc.Manypeoplewouldsayitisnot
ethicallyjustifiabletomakeotherchoicesusingPGDincludinggender,physicalattributeslikehair
andeyecolour,andsuperficialmedicalissueslikeprematurebaldness,shortsightednessanda

propensityforobesity:simplyput,designerbabiesarenotethicallyjustifiable.
AfarmerinAustraliahaslosthisorganicstatusbecauseaneighbouringfarmerusedGMcrops.This
maymeanthatallowingGMCropsisnotethicallyjustifiableforKantians.Thisisnotanargument
aboutconsequences,butaboutprinciple:doesafarmerhavearighttogroworganiccrops?Ifso,then
otherfarmerscannothavetherighttogrowgeneticallymodifiedcrops,becausethereisnowayto
containthem.Youcannotuniversalisetheprincipleofallowingfarmerstofreelychoosewhetherto
haveGMcrops,asitisselfcontradictory(ifyouallowedthechoice,everyonescropswouldbe
contaminatedandthereforeeffectivelyGMcrops),andnotethicallyjustified.
Wherethereareriskstogeneticmodification,Kantianswouldneedtoconsiderwhetherthelevelof
riskwouldmaketheprocesscontrarytothewill,andthismayneedtobecomparedtoexisting
farmingmethods,whichalsohavesomerisks.HereaKantianapproachisverysimilartoaUtilitarian
risk/benefitanalysiswhatisethicallyjustifiableiswhateverleadstothegreatergoodforhumans.
Utilitarianswouldsaythatgeneticengineeringisethicallyjustifiedwhenthebenefitsoutweighthe
risks.Forexample,usinggenesfromjellyfishtomakebacteriaandanimalsglowinthedarkhasbeen
usedbyscientiststostudyhumandiseasesandtoimprovethewaysewageistreated.Thelevelofrisk
hereislow,andthebenefitssubstantial,soUtilitarianswouldbehappywiththeseprocedures.
However,growinghumanorgansinpigshasagreaterlevelofriskfromretroviruses.Avirusjust
affectingpigscouldmoveovertohumans,causingwidespreadillnessanddeath.Recentscareshave
includedmadcowdiseaseandbirdflu.Utilitarianswilldisagreeaboutwhetherxenotransplantation
isethicallyjustifiablebasedonhowsignificanttheyfeeltheserisksare.
Wheregeneticengineeringisallowed,itisimportanttomakesurethatlawsareinplacetoprotect
people.Forexample,richbiotechcompaniesmightproducehighyieldvarietiesofcorn.Evenifthe
processesareethicallyjustifiable,farmersfromdevelopingcountriescouldloseout,whichmight
causeagreatdealofhumansuffering.BothKantiansandUtilitarianswouldwanttoprotecttherights
ofpoorfarmers.
Inconclusion,KantiansandUtilitarianswouldgivedifferentanswersastowhichspecificprocedures
areethicallyjustifiable.Kantianswouldlookattheactitself,whilstUtilitarianswouldlookatthe
consequences.Theywouldbothalsobeconcernedwithwiderimplicationsaboutthesocialaspectsof
geneticengineeringe.g.discriminationduetoPGD.Kantianswouldbeparticularlyconcernedabout
thestatusofembryosandwhetherthedignityofhumanitywouldbeaffectedbyputtinghumangenes
intocropsandanimals.Intheseareas,aUtilitarianresponseismorepopular,asitseemshardtojustify
aKantianpositionthatfailstotakeintoaccountthebenefitsofprocedures.Inissuesofrights,e.g.
savioursiblings,reproductiveclones,farmersrightsetc.aKantianapproachseemsmorejustand
ethical.