1. Does wanting to eliminate hereditary blindness imply that blind people are less worthy or less human than sighted people? Why or why not? No, wanting to eliminate hereditary blindness does not imply that blind people are less worthy or less human than sighted people. The statement made by Harold Lucas suggests a desire to prevent individuals from being born with blindness, which can be seen as a compassionate approach to improving the quality of life for future generations. It does not devalue the worth or humanity of blind individuals who already exist. 2. Is Lamont’s objection to eliminating hereditary blindness a slippery slope argument? If so, how? If not, why not? No, Lamont's objection to eliminating hereditary blindness is not a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument typically suggests that one action will inevitably lead to a series of increasingly negative consequences. Lamont's objection, on the other hand, focuses on the ethical concerns of tampering with human life and the potential for unforeseen consequences. It does not rely on the idea that eliminating hereditary blindness will inevitably lead to a harmful chain of events. 3. Do you think that germ-line therapy would be wrong because it alerts the human genome? Explain. The question seems to contain a typographical error. It should likely read: "Do you think that germ-line therapy would be wrong because it alters the human genome? Explain." The answer to this question depends on one's ethical perspective. Germ-line therapy, which involves modifying the genetic material of reproductive cells, has the potential to permanently alter the human genome. Some individuals may argue that this is ethically wrong because it involves making irreversible changes to the genetic makeup of future generations. Others may argue that germ-line therapy can be a valuable tool in preventing genetic diseases and improving overall human health. The ethical implications of germ-line therapy are complex and subject to ongoing debate. 4. How useful is it to consider the elimination of blindness therapeutic and any change going beyond the "normal" range of human abilities enhancement? Considering the elimination of blindness as therapeutic and any change going beyond the "normal" range of human abilities as enhancement can be useful in framing the ethical discussion surrounding these topics. By categorizing the elimination of blindness as therapeutic, it highlights the potential benefits of preventing a debilitating condition and improving the quality of life for individuals affected by it. On the other hand, considering changes that go beyond the "normal" range of human abilities as enhancement acknowledges that there may be ethical concerns associated with altering fundamental aspects of human nature. This framing allows for a nuanced exploration of the potential benefits and drawbacks of such interventions.

Views: 5,480 students