澳洲代写论文

澳洲代写essay:功利主义

澳洲代写essay:功利主义

功利主义是一种道德理论,将正确的行为定义为使人类幸福最大化的行动。应用于遗传学,这个理论应该广泛地支持基因测试,后代的遗传选择以及享受最佳生命的机会,基因治疗和基因增强(Savulescu,2009)。本部分运用行为功利主义分析上述伦理事实。

在功利主义行为中没有考虑行为者的动机,这个行为主要关注行为的后果。任何通过增加积极后果而对净效用作出贡献的行为都将是一种道德行为。 Tavernise的文章(2014)显示,遗传异常的儿童会增加积极的后果。手术后他们将不会有遗传异常。像Dolk等人(2010)的研究人员指出,不仅仅是孩子,而且家庭和社区也将面临有益的后果。更乐观的一点是,采用行为功利主义提高了净效用。然而,这个论点还有另外一面。从长远来看,净效用实际上可能会受到影响。从Tavernise(2014)的文章可以看出,对于这些生育过程对儿童的影响,目前还没有很好的研究。虽然直接的结果有利于儿童,但从长远来看,总体结果可能是负面的。

Field和Kaplan(2012)提出了一个稍微不同的案例,他们判断疫苗的道德使用情况。疫苗的确会产生好处。小孩接种疫苗的动机是通过增加对儿童的效用(Field和Kaplan,2012)。孩子将有良好的健康福利。然而,Field和Kaplan(2012)则认为存在相互竞争的利益和伤害。当短期效用值增加正面结果时,长期负值可能会降低整体净效用。

澳洲代写essay:功利主义

Utilitarianism is a moral theory defining the right action as the action that maximizes the total of human well-being. Applied to genetics, this theory should broadly support genetic testing, genetic selection of offspring with the opportunity to enjoy the best lives, gene therapy and genetic enhancement (Savulescu, 2009). This section analyses the ethical facts presented above using act utilitarianism.

The motivation of the actors is not considered in Act Utilitarianism which focuses on the consequences of an action. Any act that contributes to net utility by increasing the positive consequences will be a moral action. The article of Tavernise, (2014) shows that positive consequences are increased for the children who have genetic anomalies. After the procedure they will not have genetic anomalies. Researchers like Dolk et al, (2010) state that it is not just the child, but its family and the community that will also face beneficial consequences. On a more optimistic note, employing Act Utilitarianism raises the net utility. However there is another side to the argument. Net utility may actually be compromised in the long run. From Tavernise’s (2014) article it can be seen that there is no well established studies on the impact of these fertility procedures on children.  While there are immediate outcomes that are beneficial to the children, the overall outcomes in the long run might be negative.

Field and Kaplan (2012) present a slightly different case scenario where they judge the ethical usage of vaccines. Vaccines do produce benefits. The action of vaccination a child is motivated by increasing utility for the child (Field and Kaplan, 2012). The child will have good health benefits. However, as Field and Kaplan (2012) argued that there are competing benefits and harm. While short term utility value is increased by a positive consequence, long term negative value may be decrease overall net utility.