When considering ethics, we must evaluate the difference between what we can do and what we should do. There is no clear cut, definite solution when considering whether or not parents should be able to alter the genome of their children and in which ways altering is considered ethical. With the utilitarian concept, there is no right answer, there is only the idea of the “best answer,” which includes the many complex contradictions between each side of the controversy. For example, on one hand, through genetic engineering there is a large percentage of a population of children who are born without any predisposition towards a genetic disease, but on the other hand, there is the other percentage of the population affected by this disease that no research is being conducted on. The majority of the population was not affected, therefore there was little to no awareness about the disease and people did not want to financial support the research for only minimal
When considering ethics, we must evaluate the difference between what we can do and what we should do. There is no clear cut, definite solution when considering whether or not parents should be able to alter the genome of their children and in which ways altering is considered ethical. With the utilitarian concept, there is no right answer, there is only the idea of the “best answer,” which includes the many complex contradictions between each side of the controversy. For example, on one hand, through genetic engineering there is a large percentage of a population of children who are born without any predisposition towards a genetic disease, but on the other hand, there is the other percentage of the population affected by this disease that no research is being conducted on. The majority of the population was not affected, therefore there was little to no awareness about the disease and people did not want to financial support the research for only minimal