assignment you have a choice: 1) the ethics of abortion, or 2) ethics of gene editing. Please choose one of the topics to read about and watch a video over. | Quick Homework Help
I dont understand this Philosophy question and need help to study.
assignment you have a choice: 1) the ethics of abortion, or 2) ethics of gene editing. Please choose one of the topics to read about and watch a video over.
Abortion: You have two reading assignments, and a video to watch. Lecture by Aspen Baker. Reading on pro-abortion, and pro-life reading.
Gene-editing: Reading over CRISPR technology. Video on benefits of gene-editing, and two possible issues with the technology and the idea of designer babies.
The questions for both of the topics in Bioethics:
1. Explain what the moral dilemma is for the topic you chose to learn about. Explain the dilemma in terms of the moral concepts that we learned about in our discussion of normative theories. (Note: moral concepts are things like autonomy, fairness, harm, suffering, quality, freedom, etc.)
2. Pick one of the arguments from a single source for your chosen topic and give an overview of what the argument is there for or against the permissibility of the practice in question.
3. Given what you have learned about the bioethical issue, what do you think the deontologist would say about the practice? Explain why this is position that would be taken by the deontology (think about whether they would allow the practice, or if this theory would be against it, and why). What about the utilitarian? Why would they take this stance?
4. What do you think is the overriding moral concept when analyzing the permissibility of the practice that you learned about? Explain why this is the most important feature of the problem (and, this does not have to relate to any of the arguments/positions that you read or watched, this is your own opinion about what matters when we are looking at the applied issue).
5. Which position that is defended in the videos/reading to you agree with? Why do you agree? What does that position get right in its moral analysis of the issue? Similarly, which one do you disagree with, and why?
