Problems with Genetic Manipulation - Essay Example

Aristotelian Argument: Problems in Genetic Manipulation The purpose of this essay is to investigate the essay Better Living Through Genetics by: James Wood through the use of Aristotelian argument and its three elements; ethos, pathos and logos. To begin with a broad, overall criticism of this essay according to Aristotelian argument, this essay as a whole does not use ethos (moral competence) as an argument form. This can be substantiated through statements that, although persuasive at times, are simply not appealing to any sense of moral code. Other statements and terminology such as "designer children" and "in utopia, individuals can hardly be held responsible for their genes or for actions deterministically flowing from those genes", incites one to be afraid of the possibility of "Utopia" according to Wood, of ever coming to pass. In Wood's society of predetermination through genetic alterations, no one has to take any measure of personal responsibility. In the introduction of Better Living through Genetics, James Wood uses persuasive speech (logos) as well as a somewhat morally appealing argument (ethos) to convince the reader of the benefits of genetic engineering. An example of this is the sentence "Genetic analysis during in vitro ("test tube") fertilization enables couples to eliminate sickle cell anemia and a host of other diseases from their offspring.". What parent to be would not wish to ensure the healthiest of offspring There is certainly a sense of moral fiber behind wanting to make sure that one has healthy, disease free children. This statement is therefore supported by both logos and ethos. Logos is the part of Aristotelian argument that specifically deals with persuasive argument through speech. As the essay continues, Wood tried to convince his readers of the boundless benefits of literally designing and predetermining their offspring in an almost Hitler like ideology. The statement that follows is an example of something one would assume came straight out of the holocaust ".Nevertheless, society will still have to protect itself from criminals. The only practical solution, until defects are purged from the species, is mandatory genetic testing and preemptive action, including putting people with "criminal genes" in prison before they commit crimes." The fact that the reader cannot escape the notion that Wood's "utopia" is an almost genocide or ethnic cleansing of sorts, allows one to determine that both pathos (appealing to one's emotions) and ethos (moral competence) are completely abandoned. Although, a few statements such as the above idea that one can prevent one's offspring from genetic deformities and disease, may be arguably an example of either pathos or ethos. The overall essay however, deviates from both. In addition, the essay is somewhat choppy and therefore lacking in logos (argument through speech). If the piece had been more eloquently written, one may be able to find it more persuasive. This is not to say that some of the statements here and there are not worded reasonably well and therefore slightly convincing. For example, Wood discusses that the process of creating his genetically engineered "utopia" would take place in stages and eventually appeal to everyone "Almost every one of the myriad incremental steps toward utopia appeals to some value such as competitive advantage or convenience". This causes the reader to wonder if perhaps they are not being open minded enough or perhaps they have missed the greater picture. This is an example of logos (argument and persuasion through speech. The summary of Wood's essay sums up the "utopia" he desires as essentially a planet with robotic organisms devoid of any spirit or autonomy. This is the absolute opposite of the very nature of humanity and is therefore very amoral. Therefore, ethos is not an element of argument used overall in Wood's essay. The following statement in Wood's summary explains this machine run "utopia" void of humanity"In sum, the new technologies invite conceptualizing future humans as information-processing systems genetically pre-set to fit narrowly defined ranges of acceptable normalcy. Decisions of any importance will be made, as for example they are now in an increasing number of major investment houses, by machine intelligences with minor roles for human input." It is hard to imagine living in a world such as described by Wood's essay. It is ironic in fact, to utilize the elements of argument as established in Aristotelian argument. The very nature of Wood's essay contradicts the elements of humanity set forth by this type of argument. The idea that one must be persuaded by argument that must appeal to a sense of moral code and human emotion would be null and void in a world of puppet-like and mechanical organisms. If everyone on the planet was created to fit a specific standard both physically and mentally, there would be no freedom of thought and expression, no individuality. Therefore, the need to persuade one to comprehend your ideas through argument would be unnecessary and non-existent. Ultimately, it can be summarized that though a few of the noted and specific statements made by Wood are slightly convincing and can be said to be modeled by Aristotelian argument; the overall piece is void of all three elements. There is no moral justification or adherence to this essay and therefore it is not using the element of ethos. It is not persuasive in speech and is therefore not using the element of logos. It is also not appealing overall to emotions and so is therefore not using the element of pathos. It is noteworthy to mention that it may be difficult to read something that one finds amoral and therefore find elements of argument that incorporate a moral guideline. It may be moral for someone who has a different moral code than the overall majority and so this makes the criticism somewhat subjective across the board. If one individual writing a criticism of the benefits of corporal punishment, they may find that the argument is moral and therefore at least contains an element of ethos. If another individual reads the same essay and begins to write a criticism based on their firm belief that corporal punishment is wrong, they will most likely find the same essay to be devoid of ethos. Such is the case with the essay that we have been discussing by James Wood. Certain individuals may find his essay to contain the element of ethos because they personally believe that a "designer" society is a humane and moral goal. They also may find that Wood's essay contains an element of pathos as it appeals to their emotions and sympathies. They may see the society unlike Wood's "utopia" as being a sad state of affairs. The sum of this reasoning is that the analysis of such topics can be subjective. It is important however, to critically argue such essays in order to find our own humanity. We can decide the boundaries of this by using the three elements of Aristotelian argument. Read More