Utilitarianism is an ethical universal system based on the principle of utility, created by Jeremy Bentham 1748 - 1832. His theory takes into account the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It is based on the idea that whatever is beneficial to the greatest number of people is considered to be good, while whatever is beneficial to the least number of people is considered least good. As long as the course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or force. The theory uses the Hedonic calculus (SHOWN BELOW) and relies on people to score the 2 courses of action on a scale of 0-10. 0 being maximum pain and 10 being maximum pleasure.
WOULD UTILITARIANISM ALLOW GENE EDITING?
the initial answer would have to be no, because, gene editing in embryos would create a large gap in society ( since some babies would be modified to be clever, beautiful, strong, determined....... ). This gap would mean that the generations of poorer people who could not afford to modify their offspring would become poorer and poorer while the small percent of the population who could afford to buy genetic modification would become richer and richer. Even though money is not happiness, the small percent of genetic engineered embryos wold lead happier lives, while the most of the population who were not genetically modified would not. According to Utilitarianism this is not right as we should act in a way that produces the most amount of happiness for the most amount of people.
On the other hand, gene editing could help to save many lives; at the moment studies are being held to modify mosquitoe larvae to stop them carrying malaria. This also would mean that we would not have to spend billions of pounds on treatments and focus instead on putting the money into other important causses. Using CRISPR- a programme that finds and removes genes that lead to genetic illnesses such as some types of cancer- we can stop further generations from aquiring these diseases.
However, in conclusion, because we are still unsure of many side effects and further harm to any thing that has been genetically modified, i believe that Utilitarianism would not put lives at risk. If we start to use gene modifying there is no reason to say we will not stop and modify e.g. weapons which would certainly cause more pain than pleasure.
the initial answer would have to be no, because, gene editing in embryos would create a large gap in society ( since some babies would be modified to be clever, beautiful, strong, determined....... ). This gap would mean that the generations of poorer people who could not afford to modify their offspring would become poorer and poorer while the small percent of the population who could afford to buy genetic modification would become richer and richer. Even though money is not happiness, the small percent of genetic engineered embryos wold lead happier lives, while the most of the population who were not genetically modified would not. According to Utilitarianism this is not right as we should act in a way that produces the most amount of happiness for the most amount of people.
On the other hand, gene editing could help to save many lives; at the moment studies are being held to modify mosquitoe larvae to stop them carrying malaria. This also would mean that we would not have to spend billions of pounds on treatments and focus instead on putting the money into other important causses. Using CRISPR- a programme that finds and removes genes that lead to genetic illnesses such as some types of cancer- we can stop further generations from aquiring these diseases.
However, in conclusion, because we are still unsure of many side effects and further harm to any thing that has been genetically modified, i believe that Utilitarianism would not put lives at risk. If we start to use gene modifying there is no reason to say we will not stop and modify e.g. weapons which would certainly cause more pain than pleasure.