Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

So, R says I should really stop reading the news because it can’t be good for my blood pressure. I agree on that, but it is good for my rage, and knowledge is power. So I’m probably still gonna be subjecting myself to it.

So when I find an article about how it may become a “moral obligation” to do the whole “designer baby” thing because it would raise children who are more “ethical” I have to wonder if there was something in the Fruit Loops I haven’t eaten yet this morning. Apparently an Oxford professor is saying these things. Which is lowering my opinion of Oxford and its Ethical people.

I, in my confusion, asked R what the Hel ethical meant in this case. She thinks it means screening for addictions or possibly making the children more docile and obedient. Which, I suppose, makes sense.

If you buy ethics at face value. The fact is though, that ethics really don’t have a set value. What is ethical to one group is not ethical to another group. Same for people. How are you going to design “ethics” into a person? And even if you can, how the Hel are you going to pick whose ethics? Frankly, I’m not sure I wanna see a world of “ethnically better people” who were designed that way. That just sounds like a lot of trouble. And not the good kind.

You’re thoughts?

Advertisements