CASE #1.

Selecting for Deafness

Andre and Leslie want to have a child. They decide to use a process called
preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In a 2006 story, the New York
Times explained PGD as a process whereby “embryos are created in a test tube
and their DNA is analyzed before being transferred to a woman’s uterus. In this
manner, embryos destined to have, for example, cystic fibrosis or Huntington’s
disease can be excluded, and only healthy embryos implanted.” Andre and Leslie,
however, wish to use PGD to select for a disability: Andre and Leslie are deaf and
want to have a child who will grow up immersed in Deaf culture, who understands
the experience of Deafness, and who communicates via sign language. Andre and
Leslie wanted their child to be deaf like them.
Answer:
Families have more alternatives as reproductive genetic technology progresses,
allowing them to pick the type of child they want to have. For example, preimplantation
genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows parents to assess many existing embryos before deciding
which to implant via in vitro fertilization (IVF). Genetic deafness is one of the features that
PGD can detect, and hearing embryos are currently being picked preferentially all around
the world. Importantly, some Deaf families want a deaf kid, and PGD–IVF can help them
achieve that goal. However, the hearing community, including mainstream philosophy
and bioethics, is strongly opposed to genetic deafness selection. In this study, I extend
Elizabeth Barnes' value-neutral concept of disability to the case of selecting deafness as
a simple difference. I use information from Deaf Studies and Disability Studies to gain a
better knowledge of deafness, the Deaf community, and the situations that may exist for
some Deaf families when it comes to reproductive options. Selection for deafness does
not have to entail inadmissible moral damages if deafness is perceived as a mere
difference and appreciated for its cultural uniqueness. As a result, believing that selecting
for deafness in one's child is occasionally morally justified.
It is possible to hurt or help a kid before they are even conceived, thanks to the
advancement of technology. Pre-implementation genetic diagnostics is now possible,
allowing for the alteration of an embryo's genetic makeup before conception, with the
potential to harm or benefit the resulting kid. It appears that Andre and Leslie have made
the conscious decision to injure their unborn kid by deafening their embryo. Everyone,
even a child, has the right to exist as they are, and they don't have the moral obligation
to select which one gets a better life. It is preferable to be born without a disability than to
have one later in life when it might lead to a lifetime of hardships and missed opportunities.
Andre and Leslie are capable of raising a child who is aware of both his and her parents'
cultures. Even they want their baby to be deaf as them. They used preimplantation genetic
diagnosis for the safety of the baby preventing other hereditary diseases to be passed
other than deafness.
CASE #2. Fire at the Louvre
Paul is a scholar of Renaissance art history and a curator at the Louvre in Paris.
One morning, a fire sweeps through the museum. As people are evacuating the
museum, Paul has an important decision to make. Should he risk his own life by
attempting to rescue anything? He sees that he has at least two options. First, he
could rescue Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, his favorite painting in the world, and
the museum’s most prized work. Second, he could rescue a museum visitor who
seems to have lost consciousness, and who therefore seems to be incapable of
rescuing themselves.
Paul realizes that no one would blame him if he did not attempt a rescue at all,
given the personal risk involved. He also realizes that, if he does attempt a rescue,
he faces a separate question: What /whom should he rescue? Paul thinks of himself
as a kind and humane person. Watching a human being die as he saves a painting
would be devastating. But he has dedicated his entire life to studying and
preserving Renaissance art, and he loves the Mona Lisa more than anything else
in the world. Moreover, approximately six million people visit the painting every
year, and its destruction would be an immeasurable cultural loss.
Answer:
According to virtue ethics focuses especially on the states of the character of
individuals, whereas the ethics of care concerns itself, especially with caring relations.
Paul knows that he is a humane person it is important to him to have compassion for
other people. In the situation, he attempts to save or rescue either the paintings that he
admires or saves the people because the life of other people are also important to him
but in this case, he is risking his own life. But particularly in the chamber where the Mona
Lisa resides, I'd wager they have climate and emergency response automation. Security
always exists in order to be prepared for the disaster that might happen. It is impossible
for a museum, with valuable artworks, to not have intensive security especially when the
museum is well-known locally and internationally. A room containing billions of dollars
worth of artwork might be protected using this technology, which I know is used to
safeguard sensitive data. Trying to save the Mona Lisa may be more dangerous than
simply staying put in the raging inferno. Knowing that Paul may have saved lives, he may
shoulder the burden of what could have been if he saves the artwork rather than saving
the life of people.
CASE #3. “Don’t Help Me!”
Tom is a sophomore at a prestigious high school. He comes from a low-income
household and is the first member of his family to attend college. During his
freshman year, Tom did well academically and socially, though he sometimes
consumed alcohol at parties, and he was twice cited by the school for drinking in
the dorms. Going into his sophomore year, Tom already had “two strikes”: One
more citation for underage drinking on school property and he would lose his
scholarship.
During the semester, Tom and his friend Kevin are drinking at a party in a
university-owned apartment. Tom, dancing merrily, accidentally smashes a glass
bottle and badly cuts his hand. Bleeding profusely, Tom begins to feel lightheaded
and wobbly. Concerned for his friend and beginning to panic, Kevin reaches for his
phone to call for help. But Tom pleads, “Just bandage me up as best you can—if
you call for help the school will find out I’ve been drinking and I’ll lose my
scholarship! I’ll go to the health center tomorrow morning and everything will be
fine.”
Answer:
According to Kantian ethics, it is important to have a sense of duty. That doing duty
is not specified as doing what we need to be done but being responsible because it is the
right thing to do. To the duty of ethics, this suggested an act would be considered ethical
if it fulfills duty without worrying about the consequences. Tom was injured and denied to
listen to Kevin by calling the ambulance to protect his reputation in the school about his
scholarship might be affected. But it is Kevin’s duty to take Tom to the hospital because
that is the right thing to do. But Kevin worried about the consequences that if he did this
action by calling an ambulance this one-call can ruin his friend’s reputation on having the
scholarship and this might affect his life and education. But Kevin must focus on the
current situation than focusing on the future’s consequences. It is Kevin’s duty to take his
friend to the hospital since he is severely bleeding and might cause death, that is the right
thing to do than worrying about the future cost. Sapere Aude said, “Dare to think for
yourself”. The more important to Kantian ethics is you did your duty by doing what is right.
CASE #4. Swimming for Free
Angel has a college degree but is underemployed, working full-time, and struggling
to make ends meet. Mark, one of the college students with whom Angel shares an
apartment, attends an expensive private college nearby where his tuition includes
membership to the school gym and pool. Angel loves to swim to stay in shape, but
he cannot afford to join a gym or have access to a pool. Since Mark does not swim,
he agrees to let Angel use his school ID. Angel and Mark do not look identical, but
they look similar enough that they can reasonably expect that no one will notice if
Angel uses Mark’s ID.
Angel thinks that if Mark has already paid for pool access through his tuition fees
and is not using it, then Angel can use the membership. It is not as if they are both
using the membership. The private college, with its big endowment, is not losing
money on the deal.
However, the college pool is open but not free to the public: Noncollege personnel
is charged fees that help maintain the facilities. The school considers accessing a
special benefit to the students of the college that would be devalued if open access
were allowed.
Answer:
It will always be unethical and immoral regardless if they agreed with it. Lying is
number one among all the acts that are unethical or immoral. In my perspective, there will
always be consequences for every immoral act. Likewise, in every moral act that we do
there will be always an exchange of goodness. One of the reasons that it is not morally
permissible is, that if the school found out about this agreement or about their
identification both of them will be in a bad situation, especially Marc. Wherein, he is the
original owner of the ID. Angel is only concerned about maintaining her body physique
despite the fact that they have been lying in the first place. While in Marc's situation, he
never thought about the consequences he might receive if the school found out about
their actions. Despite the fact that the private college has a large endowment, it has no
money or anything to lose if the situation occurs frequently because a buddy who doesn't
utilize the privilege and is prepared to share the membership is able to make the
incapable, which is impossible, possible.
The quality of being a decent person, or an ethical person, is inextricably linked to
the quality of being kind. Kindness is the driving force behind those who are
compassionate. Mark, Angel's companion, was a kind person who cared about Angel's
sentiments and well-being, which allowed Angel to continue with his interest. It will always
be unethical and immoral regardless if they agreed with it. Lying is number one among
all the acts that are unethical or immoral. In my perspective, there will always be
consequences for every immoral act. Likewise, in every moral act that we do there will be
always an exchange of goodness. One of the reasons that it is not morally permissible is
if the school found out about this agreement or about their identification both of them will
be in a bad situation, especially Marc. Wherein, he is the original owner of the ID. Angel
is only concerned about maintaining her body physique despite the fact that they have
been lying in the first place. While in Marc's situation, he never thought about the
consequences he might receive if the school found out about their actions. Despite the
fact that the private college has a large endowment, it has no money or anything to lose
if the situation occurs frequently because a buddy who doesn't utilize the privilege and is
prepared to share the membership is able to make the incapable, which is impossible,
possible. The quality of being a decent person, or an ethical person, is inextricably linked
to the quality of being kind. Kindness is the driving force behind those who are
compassionate. Mark, Angel's companion, was a kind person who cared about Angel's
sentiments and well-being, which allowed Angel to continue with his interest.

Created by:
Alota, Sunshine A.
DeGuia, Kayla G.

Honor Pledge:
“I accept responsibility for my role in ensuring the integrity of the work submitted
by the group in which I participated.”